Today I read two distinctly different articles about golf in two different publications: One in The New York Times; and one on Golf.com. The NYT article was a dark portrait of golf and suggested that the game was unethical. The premise was based on comments made by Hugo Chávez that golf was, in essence, a rich-man’s game, which the author (Randy Cohen) then used to justify why golf should not be an Olympic sport in 2016. Reading the article gives you the impression Mr. Cohen doesn’t know much about the game.
Meanwhile, the Golf.com article was a glowing review of Sand Hills Golf Course in Nebraska. In his writing, the author, Joe Passov, paints a glorious picture of Sand Hills, citing the perfection of the land and gorgeous surroundings. He literally has you feeling like you’re ready to book a flight to Nebraska to play this place. Then, in the last line, he hits you with this: “Sand Hills is difficult to get to — and even more difficult to get on. However, the layout’s virtues — and influence — can’t be underestimated. This is the greatest course of the last 50 years.”
That’s right, Sand Hills is private. It’s the greatest course of the last 50 years and you can’t even play it. For fun, I clicked on the link of Golf.com’s list of “50 Greatest Courses of the last 50 Years” and guess what? THEY’RE ALL PRIVATE! [UPDATE: Thanks to Vince for pointing out a handful of the courses on the list are indeed open to the public – though at a steep price tag]
So the irony here is no matter how anti-golf and poorly researched the NYT article is, the Golf.com article backs-it-up. Golf is a game for the richies with private country club status – or at least that’s how top publications (both mainstream and niche publications) are apparently projecting it. But the truth is you don’t have to be rich to play golf anymore (believe me, I’m living proof). So how do we change it? It won’t be easy, but a good start would be for golf publications to begin highlighting more public courses (and not just the Pebble Beach’s of the world either) – there needs to be a shift in focus to more affordable courses too. Inexpensive courses may not be the most glamorous, but they are where more people learn, play and enjoy the game than anywhere else. Wherever the change comes from, let’s hope it’s soon.
I agree. A whole-hearted harrumph for Greg. There area bunches of inexpensive, public courses out there for the taking. I like a lot of those because there’s less pressure to dress a certain way or behave a certain way and there’s certainly no little golf guy with his hand out for a tip before and after your round.
These public courses give you a chance to hone your game; walk out there as a single or just enjoy your buddies in a comfortable atmosphere, free of pretense and crazy prices for a sandwich.
There are a handful on that list the public can play – the TPC (Sawgrass), Harbourtowne, the trio at Bandon and a few more. Also, on the Top 100, you can play Pebble, Bethpage and Pinehurst #2. All for a hefty price of either cash or wait time.
Maybe it’s just me, and I have been blessed to play a few of the best on the planet, but it seems many people just wish to tell you they have have played a certain course. I doubt they truly enjoyed PLAYING it more than a lot of the top notch courses available for daily play near your home for reasonable rates.
And Carlos is right. I have enjoyed a cheeseburger at Pine Ridge in Baltimore much more than the cucumber sandwich on crustless bread at Merion. And, I am sure as hell I shot a much lower score.
I enjoy your blog. I’ll be back for more good stuff. Thanks.
Does it really back it up?
Enjoying golf doesn’t mean playing it on only the top courses in the world. And honestly, how many of the average group of amateur golfers could enjoy the challenges that are offered? Not many.