Are Today's Golf Courses Unfair to the Average Golfer?

[ryancjordan]

Thread recap:

-"I used to walk 29 miles in the snow every morning to get to school, you kids have it so damned easy nowadays."
-"Sir, we simply want to have courses that are designed fairly so more people will play and enjoy the game"
-"Shut up! I'm sick of you damned whiners, learn to play the game. Life isn't easy, so why should golf be?"

Repeat 500x, reveal people are incapable of rational arguments.

[kellygreen]

[quote name='ryancjordan' timestamp='1355585983' post='6072707']
Thread recap:

-"I used to walk 29 miles in the snow every morning to get to school, you kids have it so damned easy nowadays."
-"Sir, we simply want to have courses that are designed fairly so more people will play and enjoy the game"
-"Shut up! I'm sick of you damned whiners, learn to play the game. Life isn't easy, so why should golf be?"

Repeat 500x, reveal people are incapable of rational arguments.
[/quote]

Disagree.

This topic---like politics and religion---is about a clash of values. Between people who are Egalitarian versus people who are Authoritarian.

Egalitarians value equality, inclusiveness, and community. So they are the ones arguing that their should be a broader range of playing experiences available so that more people feel welcome to the game, and can have fun playing it with whatever skill level they bring to the table. That the game should be willing to adapt itself to the needs of people, and the different---more hectic---way that people live compared to 50 years ago.

Authoritarians value order, tradition, predictability and priviliege. So they are ones arguing that the "game is what it is"...and if people don't feel comfortable, struggle to play the game, or their lifestyles don't mesh well with the game...then thats' really just too bad for them. The game shouldn't change itself (?)to accomodate "these people". Because the things "these people" want must be EARNED...and if you aren't willing to "earn it", then you don't "deserve" to enjoy the game.

So you basically have two groups that (in many ways) are functioning in different reality-systems. Egalitarians are not going to be persuaded by arguments that are based upon primary values of exclusiveness and social hierarchy. Authoritarians are not going to be persuaded by arguments that are based upon primary values of inclusivness and equality.

[Sean2]

[quote name='Flykixz23' timestamp='1355443172' post='6065119']
Well I think it's pretty easy to say don't go play a course you know is going to play over 7200 yards with water everwhere and sandtraps all over the place, those courses are designed very nice but I feel should be played by a golfer who will shoot an 82 or under and be able to keep pace at a course like tha! there are tons of courses an average golfer can play and have fun at!
[/quote]

Sorry I missed this earlier. I agree, but then why design a course like this if the vast majority of golfers couldn't break 90 on a course like this on their best day?

[Sean2]

[quote name='SurfDuffer' timestamp='1355483963' post='6067173']
[quote name='Sean2' timestamp='1355450255' post='6065693']
[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1355449570' post='6065617']
IMO - People that love golf, and have the financial resources and lifestyle that allows the game, cope with courses. Some of them will move up tees or maybe find courses that fit their skill level. The people leaving the game were never really committed to the game in the first place, and or they have other personal priorities for the money.
[/quote]

I can't argue with that Pepper. However, the game needs more people. You say you understand business. Isn't business about growth, not decline? Less people playing golf is not a good thing for the golf industry as a whole: courses close, people lose jobs, fewer people purchasing equipment, including the equipment that maintains golf courses, not just the equipment we put in our bags, etc.
[/quote]

The boom and bust we've seen in recent years was a bubble brought on by bad business decisions. Now we are seeing a contraction as the market fixes things.
[/quote]

Some have been bad business decisions, some have not.

[Sean2]

[quote name='Imp' timestamp='1355488805' post='6067259']
[quote name='Sean2' timestamp='1355450255' post='6065693']
I can't argue with that Pepper. However, the game needs more people. You say you understand business. Isn't business about growth, not decline? Less people playing golf is not a good thing for the golf industry as a whole: courses close, people lose jobs, fewer people purchasing equipment, including the equipment that maintains golf courses, not just the equipment we put in our bags, etc.
[/quote]That report comparing 1970 to today appears to show that growth is decreasing, based on the current population of today vs yesteryear. Yet, leaves speculation to the "why is it happening" to the reader with finger pointing at the PGA. During this time, number of courses grew.

Here's the question I'd love to have answered: How would we know if the number of golfers in the 70s wasn't OVER-sturated and it's only normalizing today? At that, looking at the numbers...

1970: 200M/25M=12.5%
2012: 300M/26M=8.6%

Was 1970 the peak of golfing? I'd love to see the answer to that.

At what point does supply (number of courses) outweigh demand (players to play them) and cause saturation of the market? Who's problem is that? What If today we've normalized at under 10% of the population with the time, money, and desire to play? Then the market is simply dictating what should happen to the businesses. Get lean, or close. They're businesses. They have risks to operation, especially when they're more service oriented and less product. I understand that people call the course "a product", but it's not in the strict sense of the term. It's a service. Services fail when money is tight.

We hear time and time again "If you don't like it, don't use it. Let market sort it out." I think that's what's going on. Let them close. No one "owes" a less used course a dime to stay in existance. They assumed the risk by opening.

--kC
[/quote]

But if you supply a good product/service you have a better chance of staying in business. Restaurants close all the time because of a combination of poor service and/or poor food. Provide an excellent product/service you have a much better chance of staying in business.

[Sean2]

[quote name='Petethreeput' timestamp='1355583297' post='6072529']
I don't believe people quit because it is too hard. I do think the creation of punitive courses is aiding the decline of golf, and most of it financial.

People quit because the greens fees are outpacing the enjoyment of playing golf. All economic decisions are based on tradeoffs, and if the price outweighs the enjoyment, people choose to do other things.

Piggybacking on Peppers comments, if his comments on what a golfer should look like (older, disposable income, free time, etc.) then in my estimation it follows new courses should be less punitive. The difficulty in all athletic endeavors, particularly over 60 crowds, are genetics and the aging process. When I get to 60, I will be lucky if I can tie my shoes. Because I will wearing velcro slips ons, does this mean I don't deserve to play golf if the only courses are long and punitive? Do I only deserve to play dogtrack muni's?

People age differently, for every athletic specimen at age 60, there are a hundreds of us who will limp into old age because of sports related injuries in their past (or simple genetics). Does it make me a bad golfer? I don't think so. If the only courses available to me are one's that I cannot play because of my declining athleticism, I will quit because the fun will not justify the expense.

These same courses are the one's that make beginners stop playing. The expense of the course simply does not translate into fun for the average golfer.
[/quote]

If you're paying for something and not getting any pleasure out of it? What's the point.

And yes, as the population get older, and it is, who is going to play all these tougher courses? More and more courses will close, not open. That's just a fact.

[Sean2]

[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1355586760' post='6072757']
[quote name='ryancjordan' timestamp='1355585983' post='6072707']
Thread recap:

-"I used to walk 29 miles in the snow every morning to get to school, you kids have it so damned easy nowadays."
-"Sir, we simply want to have courses that are designed fairly so more people will play and enjoy the game"
-"Shut up! I'm sick of you damned whiners, learn to play the game. Life isn't easy, so why should golf be?"

Repeat 500x, reveal people are incapable of rational arguments.
[/quote]

Disagree.

This topic---like politics and religion---is about a clash of values. Between people who are Egalitarian versus people who are Authoritarian.

Egalitarians value equality, inclusiveness, and community. So they are the ones arguing that their should be a broader range of playing experiences available so that more people feel welcome to the game, and can have fun playing it with whatever skill level they bring to the table. That the game should be willing to adapt itself to the needs of people, and the different---more hectic---way that people live compared to 50 years ago.

Authoritarians value order, tradition, predictability and priviliege. So they are ones arguing that the "game is what it is"...and if people don't feel comfortable, struggle to play the game, or their lifestyles don't mesh well with the game...then thats' really just too bad for them. The game shouldn't change itself (?)to accomodate "these people". Because the things "these people" want must be EARNED...and if you aren't willing to "earn it", then you don't "deserve" to enjoy the game.

So you basically have two groups that (in many ways) are functioning in different reality-systems. Egalitarians are not going to be persuaded by arguments that are based upon primary values of exclusiveness and social hierarchy. Authoritarians are not going to be persuaded by arguments that are based upon primary values of inclusivness and equality.
[/quote]

A nicely put juxtaposition, but there is nothing wrong with tradition. :-)

However, the elitism, arrogance, and name calling, of some of the posters (who sound like today's secular progressives), misses the entire thrust of the argument. Or maybe not. Perhaps, as you so aptly allude to, they see things through an entirely different perceptual framework. What it is that must be "earned" is beyond me. It's a game for heaven's sake, not life or death.

[mdgboxx]

[quote name='Sean2' timestamp='1355604631' post='6073687']
[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1355586760' post='6072757']
[quote name='ryancjordan' timestamp='1355585983' post='6072707']
Thread recap:

-"I used to walk 29 miles in the snow every morning to get to school, you kids have it so damned easy nowadays."
-"Sir, we simply want to have courses that are designed fairly so more people will play and enjoy the game"
-"Shut up! I'm sick of you damned whiners, learn to play the game. Life isn't easy, so why should golf be?"

Repeat 500x, reveal people are incapable of rational arguments.
[/quote]

Disagree.

This topic---like politics and religion---is about a clash of values. Between people who are Egalitarian versus people who are Authoritarian.

Egalitarians value equality, inclusiveness, and community. So they are the ones arguing that their should be a broader range of playing experiences available so that more people feel welcome to the game, and can have fun playing it with whatever skill level they bring to the table. That the game should be willing to adapt itself to the needs of people, and the different---more hectic---way that people live compared to 50 years ago.

Authoritarians value order, tradition, predictability and priviliege. So they are ones arguing that the "game is what it is"...and if people don't feel comfortable, struggle to play the game, or their lifestyles don't mesh well with the game...then thats' really just too bad for them. The game shouldn't change itself (?)to accomodate "these people". Because the things "these people" want must be EARNED...and if you aren't willing to "earn it", then you don't "deserve" to enjoy the game.

So you basically have two groups that (in many ways) are functioning in different reality-systems. Egalitarians are not going to be persuaded by arguments that are based upon primary values of exclusiveness and social hierarchy. Authoritarians are not going to be persuaded by arguments that are based upon primary values of inclusivness and equality.
[/quote]

A nicely put juxtaposition, but there is nothing wrong with tradition. :-)

However, the elitism, arrogance, and name calling, of some of the posters (who sound like today's secular progressives), misses the entire thrust of the argument. Or maybe not. Perhaps, as you so aptly allude to, they see things through an entirely different perceptual framework. What it is that must be "earned" is beyond me. It's a game for heaven's sake, not life or death.
[/quote]

As Ben Hogan once replied to someone: "The more I practice, the luckier I get"

[Sean2]

^^^^Some are luckier than others. No matter how much they practice. :-)

[kellygreen]

[quote name='Sean2' timestamp='1355604631' post='6073687']
A nicely put juxtaposition, but there is nothing wrong with tradition. :-)

However, the elitism, arrogance, and name calling, of some of the posters (who sound like today's secular progressives), misses the entire thrust of the argument. Or maybe not. Perhaps, as you so aptly allude to, they see things through an entirely different perceptual framework. What it is that must be "earned" is beyond me. It's a game for heaven's sake, not life or death.
[/quote]

Ideologues of any stripe always come accross as elitist, arrogant, and condescending. The only thing that seperates one group from another is what they feel SUPERIOR and supernaturally CERTAIN about. Progressive ideologues have the nasty habit of feeling intellectually superior to everyone else, and will tend to LECTURE people: [i]If you only were only smart enough and knowledgeable enough, you'd see things my way....[/i]

Conservative ideologues have the equally nasty---and arguably more toxic---habit of feeling morally superior to everyone else, and will tend to want to reprimand and punish: [i]If only you were a good person with the 'right' values, you'd see things my way....[/i]

The Authoritarians in this discussion haven't "missed" the main thrust...they just see a DIFFERENT main thrust than you (and I) do.

Think of it this way, where matters of community goes, Egalitarians are "lumpers" and community builders. They instinctively want to smooth over differences, bring people together and share. Authortarians are "splitters". They see a world of terms of groups competing against one another for limited resources of power, prestiege, wealth, and self-esteem. A world where some people have earned/deserve access to these things...and where others have not/do not. It's a tough world out there, and you'd better see to it that you get you some, because don't come looking to me for help if you don't. If you don't measure up, you'd better make yourself happy with whatever's left over....

What "has to be earned" in their eyes (in the context of this discussion) are the necessary golf SKILLS that will allow players to move their ball around and enjoy the game.

So while egalitarians like you and I will argue that the course architecture should be softened so that there is a place to play for every skill level....

...the authoritarians believe that those who don't have the skills to "play with the big boys" should just make themselves content to PRACTICE and hang out on executive courses until they can play better. If you physically can't reach that level...or your life won't let you practice that much...too bad, go find another hobby.

Neither attitude is fundamentally right or wrong....they just value different things...and therefore interpret situation differently.

[Pepperturbo]

[quote name='Sean2' timestamp='1355603300' post='6073623']
[quote name='Imp' timestamp='1355488805' post='6067259']
[quote name='Sean2' timestamp='1355450255' post='6065693']
I can't argue with that Pepper. However, the game needs more people. You say you understand business. Isn't business about growth, not decline? Less people playing golf is not a good thing for the golf industry as a whole: courses close, people lose jobs, fewer people purchasing equipment, including the equipment that maintains golf courses, not just the equipment we put in our bags, etc.
[/quote]That report comparing 1970 to today appears to show that growth is decreasing, based on the current population of today vs yesteryear. Yet, leaves speculation to the "why is it happening" to the reader with finger pointing at the PGA. During this time, number of courses grew.

Here's the question I'd love to have answered: How would we know if the number of golfers in the 70s wasn't OVER-sturated and it's only normalizing today? At that, looking at the numbers...

1970: 200M/25M=12.5%
2012: 300M/26M=8.6%

Was 1970 the peak of golfing? I'd love to see the answer to that.

At what point does supply (number of courses) outweigh demand (players to play them) and cause saturation of the market? Who's problem is that? What If today we've normalized at under 10% of the population with the time, money, and desire to play? Then the market is simply dictating what should happen to the businesses. Get lean, or close. They're businesses. They have risks to operation, especially when they're more service oriented and less product. I understand that people call the course "a product", but it's not in the strict sense of the term. It's a service. Services fail when money is tight.

We hear time and time again "If you don't like it, don't use it. Let market sort it out." I think that's what's going on. Let them close. No one "owes" a less used course a dime to stay in existance. They assumed the risk by opening.

--kC
[/quote]

But if you supply a good product/service you have a better chance of staying in business. Restaurants close all the time because of a combination of poor service and/or poor food. Provide an excellent product/service you have a much better chance of staying in business.
[/quote]

You are right about Restaurants closing, but your perception overlooks contributing factors. Restaurateur friends say fickle customers that, for the most part, lack loyalty and willingness to pay for quality; not to mention lack culinary or restaurant expertise are deterrents to success. Kinda of like the guy that loves boiler makers critiquing Glenmorangie 18. If consumers are going to critique, they need to know more about the subject than "me don't like" or lets try these other places that offer discount coupons. Same goes for golf courses and shafts. People complain about cost and difficulty of exotic shafts. Reasoning... because someone can't benefit from a $300 shaft, they think companies should make more $50 dollar easier to hit shafts.

[Sean2]

An excellent distinction Kelly. Well said.

Darwinian's will out, or as Herbert Spencer put it: life is nasty, brutish, and short. As a philosophical construct no minds will be changed in this thread. The universe is an idea construction. In this instance, two different contructs. Authoritarian versus egalitarian, to borrow your terms.

[Sean2]

[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1355606264' post='6073799']
[quote name='Sean2' timestamp='1355603300' post='6073623']
[quote name='Imp' timestamp='1355488805' post='6067259']
[quote name='Sean2' timestamp='1355450255' post='6065693']
I can't argue with that Pepper. However, the game needs more people. You say you understand business. Isn't business about growth, not decline? Less people playing golf is not a good thing for the golf industry as a whole: courses close, people lose jobs, fewer people purchasing equipment, including the equipment that maintains golf courses, not just the equipment we put in our bags, etc.
[/quote]That report comparing 1970 to today appears to show that growth is decreasing, based on the current population of today vs yesteryear. Yet, leaves speculation to the "why is it happening" to the reader with finger pointing at the PGA. During this time, number of courses grew.

Here's the question I'd love to have answered: How would we know if the number of golfers in the 70s wasn't OVER-sturated and it's only normalizing today? At that, looking at the numbers...

1970: 200M/25M=12.5%
2012: 300M/26M=8.6%

Was 1970 the peak of golfing? I'd love to see the answer to that.

At what point does supply (number of courses) outweigh demand (players to play them) and cause saturation of the market? Who's problem is that? What If today we've normalized at under 10% of the population with the time, money, and desire to play? Then the market is simply dictating what should happen to the businesses. Get lean, or close. They're businesses. They have risks to operation, especially when they're more service oriented and less product. I understand that people call the course "a product", but it's not in the strict sense of the term. It's a service. Services fail when money is tight.

We hear time and time again "If you don't like it, don't use it. Let market sort it out." I think that's what's going on. Let them close. No one "owes" a less used course a dime to stay in existance. They assumed the risk by opening.

--kC
[/quote]

But if you supply a good product/service you have a better chance of staying in business. Restaurants close all the time because of a combination of poor service and/or poor food. Provide an excellent product/service you have a much better chance of staying in business.
[/quote]

You are right about Restaurants closing, but your perception overlooks contributing factors. Restaurateur friends say fickle customers that, for the most part, lack loyalty and willingness to pay for quality; not to mention lack culinary or restaurant expertise are deterrents to success. Kinda of like the guy that loves boiler makers critiquing Glenmorangie 18. If consumers are going to critique, they need to know more about the subject than "me don't like" or lets try these other places that offer discount coupons. Same goes for golf courses and shafts. People complain about cost and difficulty of exotic shafts. Reasoning... because someone can't benefit from a $300 shaft, they think companies should make more $50 dollar easier to hit shafts.
[/quote]

There is a restaurant in our town that has been in business for years...good food, good service...and they continue to pack in the customers. It's not exotic or upscale, just good food at reasonable prices with great service. It's not rocket science.

[Pepperturbo]

When people feel little, possibly put upon or victims, they label people that disagree with their position or feelings. Sad reflection.

[kellygreen]

[quote name='Sean2' timestamp='1355607385' post='6073859']
An excellent distinction Kelly. Well said.

Darwinian's will out, or as Herbert Spencer put it: life is nasty, brutish, and short. As a philosophical construct no minds will be changed in this thread. The universe is an idea construction. In this instance, two different contructs. Authoritarian versus egalitarian, to borrow your terms.
[/quote]

Thanks.

Anyway, healthy societies need both its Egalitarians and its Authoritarians. Because the Egalitarians tend to be the society's, Creators, Builders, and Community Builders. The Authoritarians tend to be the Protectors and Preservers.

Societies only tend to run into problems if one or the other becomes too powerful....or chases the other from the public square entirely. Societies where the Authoritarians have run off the Egalitarians do become ugly, brutish, stifling places to live....or die (Nazi Germany). Societies where the Egalitarians have run off the Authoritarians fall into chaos...and tend not to survive very long, as other Authoritarians start rushing in to try to fill the power vacuum created.

[Sean2]

[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1355607893' post='6073903']
When people feel little, possibly put upon or victims, they label people that disagree with their position or feelings. Sad reflection.
[/quote]

Indeed, and we've had lots of labeling: whiners, lazy, quitters, just to name a few.

[Sean2]

[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1355608351' post='6073927']
[quote name='Sean2' timestamp='1355607385' post='6073859']
An excellent distinction Kelly. Well said.

Darwinian's will out, or as Herbert Spencer put it: life is nasty, brutish, and short. As a philosophical construct no minds will be changed in this thread. The universe is an idea construction. In this instance, two different contructs. Authoritarian versus egalitarian, to borrow your terms.
[/quote]

Thanks.

Anyway, healthy societies need both its Egalitarians and its Authoritarians. Because the Egalitarians tend to be the society's, Creators, Builders, and Community Builders. The Authoritarians tend to be the Protectors and Preservers.

Societies only tend to run into problems if one or the other becomes too powerful....or chases the other from the public square entirely. Societies where the Authoritarians have run off the Egalitarians do become ugly, brutish, stifling places to live....or die (Nazi Germany). Societies where the Egalitarians have run off the Authoritarians fall into chaos...and tend not to survive very long, as other Authoritarians start rushing in to try to fill the power vacuum created.
[/quote]

Agreed. And we see a total breakdown of society.

But, getting back to golf. Fundamentally, we just want to see some folks have fun. I suppose that makes us "enablers". For some that is seen as wrong, because those who are "enabled" haven't worked for "it". But, it's a GAME, it's supposed to be fun. When I was in the Marine Corps we trained as if it was life or death...well it WAS life or death. This if golf. A game where we chase a golf ball around a beautiful piece of real estate. GAME. FUN.

[kellygreen]

[quote name='Sean2' timestamp='1355613961' post='6074249']
Agreed. And we see a total breakdown of society.

But, getting back to golf. Fundamentally, we just want to see some folks have fun. I suppose that makes us "enablers". For some that is seen as wrong, because those who are "enabled" haven't worked for "it". But, it's a GAME, it's supposed to be fun. When I was in the Marine Corps we trained as if it was life or death...well it WAS life or death. This if golf. A game where we chase a golf ball around a beautiful piece of real estate. GAME. FUN.
[/quote]

“[i]Here at last
We shall be free;
the Almighty hath not built
Here for his envy, will not drive us hence:[/i]
[b]Here we may reign secure, and in my choice[/b]
[i][b]To reign is worth ambition though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven.” [/b][/i]

----Lucifer. Paradise Lost.

Yes, it is a game. But it is a game whose MEANING and SIGNIFICANCE is different to different people.

A meaning that is created and interpreted through the prism of that person's life experience, and that person's fundamental values.

To an Egalitarian, if it is not a means by which to have fun and to bring people together and make them feel included....[i]what is the point?[/i]

To an Authoritarian, if it is not a means by which he may demonstrate his mettle, his character, and what sets him apart from those less capable, less industrious and less deserving....[i]what is the point?[/i]

Making the game less fun, and more exclusionary, neutralizes its value in the eyes of the Egalitarian.

Making the game easier, and more inclusive, neutralizes its value in the eyes of the Authoritarian. Especially if it requires changes that ignore his desire for Order and his need to demonstrate Mastery.

[hoganfan924]

Interesting insight Kellygreen. Not quite sure how I fit into that picture as my personal motivation for playing fits into the authoritarian view (personal mastery) but my view for others is that it should be fun and inclusive for the majority and only rises to the mastery motivation for a very small minority. Guess I just think that there's plenty of room for both, which is where my arguments originate.

IOW, almost all courses built since the 1980's have been built to appeal to a small minority of golfers while simultaneously trying to convince the majority that losing 6 balls/round and shooting 110 is fun because "golf is supposed to be hard and the harder the better.". If that attitude didnt exist, why would GD even have a "100 hardest golf courses" list?

[Sean2]

[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1355614755' post='6074297']
[quote name='Sean2' timestamp='1355613961' post='6074249']
Agreed. And we see a total breakdown of society.

But, getting back to golf. Fundamentally, we just want to see some folks have fun. I suppose that makes us "enablers". For some that is seen as wrong, because those who are "enabled" haven't worked for "it". But, it's a GAME, it's supposed to be fun. When I was in the Marine Corps we trained as if it was life or death...well it WAS life or death. This if golf. A game where we chase a golf ball around a beautiful piece of real estate. GAME. FUN.
[/quote]

“[i]Here at last
We shall be free;
the Almighty hath not built
Here for his envy, will not drive us hence:[/i]
[b]Here we may reign secure, and in my choice[/b]
[i][b]To reign is worth ambition though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven.” [/b][/i]

----Lucifer. Paradise Lost.

Yes, it is a game. But it is a game whose MEANING and SIGNIFICANCE is different to different people.

A meaning that is created and interpreted through the prism of that person's life experience, and that person's fundamental values.

To an Egalitarian, if it is not a means by which to have fun and to bring people together and make them feel included....[i]what is the point?[/i]

To an Authoritarian, if it is not a means by which he may demonstrate his mettle, his character, and what sets him apart from those less capable, less industrious and less deserving....[i]what is the point?[/i]

[b]Making the game less fun, and more exclusionary, neutralizes its value in the eyes of the Egalitarian.[/b]

[b]Making the game easier, and more inclusive, neutralizes its value in the eyes of the Authoritarian.[/b] Especially if it requires changes that ignore his desire for Order and his need to demonstrate Mastery.
[/quote]

Absolutely.

However (and perhaps this applies to you as well?), I play in tournaments and work hard to get my HI down. I too work on Mastery (sheer folly I know). But, I also recognize the other side of the golfing equation. And, I think this is where the difference lies. There is room in this game for the serious, dedicated amateur golfer, as well as the "average" golfer. The two aren't and shouldn't be mutually exclusive.

[Sean2]

[quote name='hoganfan924' timestamp='1355616341' post='6074367']
Interesting insight Kellygreen. Not quite sure how I fit into that picture as my personal motivation for playing fits into the authoritarian view (personal mastery) but my view for others is that it should be fun and inclusive for the majority and only rises to the mastery motivation for a very small minority. Guess I just think that there's plenty of room for both, which is where my arguments originate.

IOW, almost all courses built since the 1980's have been built to appeal to a small minority of golfers while simultaneously trying to convince the majority that losing 6 balls/round and shooting 110 is fun because "golf is supposed to be hard and the harder the better.". If that attitude didnt exist, why would GD even have a "100 hardest golf courses" list?
[/quote]

I'm in the same situation as well. As I said in my post above, I seek mastery (folly I know), but recognize that this is a game for everyone too.

By the way, how about a 100 best courses list for the mid handicapper?

[kellygreen]

[quote name='Sean2' timestamp='1355618258' post='6074453']
Absolutely.

However (and perhaps this applies to you as well?), I play in tournaments and work hard to get my HI down. I too work on Mastery (sheer folly I know). But, I also recognize the other side of the golfing equation. And, I think this is where the difference lies. There is room in this game for the serious, dedicated amateur golfer, as well as the "average" golfer. The two aren't and shouldn't be mutually exclusive.
[/quote]

Same here, and agreed. Though I don't play competitively.

But that once again gets back to the fundamental difference between Egalitarian and Authoritarian worldviews. Egalitarians tend to be community builders because they (tempermentally) are comfortable with Uncertainty, Newness, and Lack of Control....they see them as opportunities to experience new things and to learn. They also have the ability to see things from many different points of view (perspectives) without them having to cancel each other out...or someone having to be made "wrong" or "bad".

Authoritarian personalities tend to splitters and more comfortable in situations where their hierarchy and seperation rather than inclusiveness because they are less comfortable with Uncertainty, Newness and Lack of Control. To them, these are not opportunities to learn, they are THREATS that need to be managed (controlled). They tend to more locked into their own point of view (or the point of view of their "tribe") on matters. So anything that varies from this is seen as "wrong" or "bad" in absolute termrs.

So you (and I) take the position we do because we have "open" personalities that are comfortable with change, and can clearly envision the building of easier golf courses not being a threat to the enjoyment of the game by the skilled player.

Those opposed tend to take the position that they do because they are less open to change, more inclined to see change as somethign threatening or "bad"...and tend to see things in "either-or", zero-sum terms. Where any gain to the less-skilled player's enjoyment comes at the expense of the satisfaction of the more skilled player.

Those "limited resources", remember?

[kellygreen]

[quote name='hoganfan924' timestamp='1355616341' post='6074367']
Interesting insight Kellygreen. Not quite sure how I fit into that picture as my personal motivation for playing fits into the authoritarian view (personal mastery) but my view for others is that it should be fun and inclusive for the majority and only rises to the mastery motivation for a very small minority. Guess I just think that there's plenty of room for both, which is where my arguments originate.

IOW, almost all courses built since the 1980's have been built to appeal to a small minority of golfers while simultaneously trying to convince the majority that losing 6 balls/round and shooting 110 is fun because "golf is supposed to be hard and the harder the better.". If that attitude didnt exist, why would GD even have a "100 hardest golf courses" list?
[/quote]

See post above.

Especially to the Egalitarian, its not an either-or situation. You can be both Inclusive towards others, yet value mastery for yourself. Because the Egalitarian is comfortable with being around people who march to a different drumbeat (diversity). As you said, there is room at the table for both...because you can see the situation from enough-and-different perspectives to realize the value of both.

The Authoritarian doesn't have the same ability to do that. They are uncomfortable in situations where those around them do not reflect back to them the values they are more comfortable with. So they are more inclined to insist that its "one or the other". Either my way...or the highway. That everyone has to seek mastery in order for their opinions and needs to matter. Those who do not value it, should make themselves content with whatever is left and whatever the can get. (Because they are less deserving). Because they are more locked into a single way of looking at things and doing things, they are less able to see the value of other points of view...and less willing to co-exist with them.

[Sean2]

Kelly, the more the merrier I say. :-) It can only be good for the game in the long run. Not everyone can dedicate the time to the game that others can, though I'm sure many of them would like to.

I'm sure the authoritarian versus egalitarian argument you make has never been applied to golf, but it's certainly applicable. The "methodology" the average golfer brings to the game does fit into the perceptual framework of the authoritarian if and only if that means high scores, lost balls, and the inability to hit a 4-iron 180 over a pond to a tight pin. :-)

Bringing the average golfer into the game, so to speak, threatens a superiority that is currently "owned" by the authoritarian when it comes to golf.

The last two paragraphs presuppose I am understanding the theory correctly.

[Sean2]

[quote name='Petethreeput' timestamp='1355628450' post='6075143']
I find it interesting that for all these who expose the most difficult courses are the only true test, when an individual who played professional sport, looks forward to their only athletic outlet as they age, and wants somewhere to play beside the fenced in muni gets no response.

Lets put a point on this lack of response.

I suspect I am within the top 1% of the athletes in this country, as I suspect very few get paid to play stupid games. I am hoping to find a place to play, and 15 years from now, those places may well disappear as my athleticism also disappears. I will always have the hand eye coordination, but the [i]athlete[/i]ism will be gone.

Sorry for whining, apparently I peaked before others.

I play another sport, and I am 45. Because I don't play on the tour, it is a game. It is not competitive, I did that, that was hard, this is supposed to be fun.

Please, anyone who wants to play the "if you aren't good then you aren't trying" card, respond.

The progression? Sport, tennis, golf, checkers, death.... when do you take the third step? I ask you that. I did it when I couldn't play a sport anymore, I hope to have a place to play golf.
[/quote]

I trust you'll have a place to play Pete.

I too am disturbed by the "if you aren't good then you aren't trying" card. Look at Charles Barkley for example. He can't be accused of not trying.

[kellygreen]

[quote name='Sean2' timestamp='1355619994' post='6074565']
Kelly, the more the merrier I say. :-) It can only be good for the game in the long run. Not everyone can dedicate the time to the game that others can, though I'm sure many of them would like to.

I'm sure the authoritarian versus egalitarian argument you make has never been applied to golf, but it's certainly applicable. The "methodology" the average golfer brings to the game does fit into the perceptual framework of the authoritarian if and only if that means high scores, lost balls, and the inability to hit a 4-iron 180 over a pond to a tight pin. :-)

Bringing the average golfer into the game, so to speak, threatens a superiority that is currently "owned" by the authoritarian when it comes to golf.

The last two paragraphs presuppose I am understanding the theory correctly.
[/quote]

Or "[i]lessens the character and challenge of the game[/i]"...which is how the authoritarian is liable to express it if pressed on the matter.

[Desert Golf]

Wow....you guys are really overthinking this. Authoritarians vs Egalitarians and culture war?

I have over 100 golf courses to choose from within a 20 mile radius. I can choose to play wide open resort courses with ratings under 115 or difficult tracks like Classic Club (slope 75.8/ rating 144) or PGA West Stadium (slope 74.3/rating 146).

Unless you are a slow learner, it doesn't take long to figure out what suits your game.

Just pick courses that give you the most enjoyment and play from the correct set of tees.

[Bulle Rock Golf]

[quote name='Desert Golf' timestamp='1355668362' post='6076105']
Wow....you guys are really overthinking this. Authoritarians vs Egalitarians and culture war?

I have over 100 golf courses to choose from within a 20 mile radius. I can choose to play wide open resort courses with ratings under 115 or difficult tracks like Classic Club (slope 75.8/ rating 144) or PGA West Stadium (slope 74.3/rating 146).

Unless you are a slow learner, it doesn't take long to figure out what suits your game.

Just pick courses that give you the most enjoyment and play from the correct set of tees.
[/quote]

That's all this really comes down to - playing from the correct set of tees.

My 62 year old mother who plays once a week in Central NY comes down to visit a few times a year and can break 100 here from the Red tees & Bulle Rock is the 20th most difficult public / 70th most difficult course overall (GolfDigest 2012 75 toughest)

If she can do it -- anyone can

[ABgolfer2]

[quote name='Desert Golf' timestamp='1355668362' post='6076105']
Wow....you guys are really overthinking this. Authoritarians vs Egalitarians and culture war?

I have over 100 golf courses to choose from within a 20 mile radius. I can choose to play wide open resort courses with ratings under 115 or difficult tracks like Classic Club (slope 75.8/ rating 144) or PGA West Stadium (slope 74.3/rating 146).

Unless you are a slow learner, it doesn't take long to figure out what suits your game.

Just pick courses that give you the most enjoyment and play from the correct set of tees.
[/quote]

No kidding. The course used for Big Break Atlantis looked more "inclusive" than the Greenbrier courses this year. The Greenbrier looks 100 times more fun though. Pick your poison.

[fhasel]

The vast majority of courses are perfectly fine if you play from the appropriate tee box. I play golf for enjoyment, and that means playing from the tees that will leave me an approach shot of about 150 yds more or less. That usually means the 6200 - 6400 yd tee box. I don't want 4 iron or 3 wood approach shots. When I get to use my scoring clubs more often, that lets me score well and keep my index right where it needs to be.

Isn't that the ultimate goal?