Golf Digest readers Justin Blair and Andy Jones sent outspoken letters about our just-landed private club package in the October issue. Although we made the case that now was a great time to take advantage of bargains in the golf-club market, Blair and Jones aren't buying.

I think that being a member to some private club is a joke. Why pay so much for golf? Maybe I'm different, but I can't see spending thousands of dollars for what, the privilege? Wow!

I play almost all of my golf at St. Joe Valley Golf Club in Sturgis, MI. It will never hold a U.S. Open, or be ranked in the "Top 100 Courses You Can Play"; it doesn't reach 6,000 yards or have a slope rating of 150, but I love this place.

Maybe this doesn't make me a "real" golfer in this magazine's eyes. but I don't care. I have a hard enough time breaking 90 here, so it's definitely a challenge for me. The golf's a great deal, even on high-season weekends. I can't even begin to describe the hospitality of the owners, Don and Sue Powell. I can't afford to be a member (even though St. Joe is only about $500. (Again, maybe why I'm not a REAL golfer) But it doesn't matter to them, they treat me as if I were. I've yet to find any real jerks here, either.

I imagine I'll never play Pebble, Spyglass, St. Andrews or any other "Top 100's", but with what I have basically in my backyard, I could care less.
--Justin Blair

(Note: St. Joe Valley Golf Course ranks as one of the country's best bargains according to Golf Digest's Places to Play ratings by public golfers. It earns 4 stars and offers greens fees as low as $19).

Over the years of reading various golf publications I have become and increasingly concerned with the future--or price tag--of our sport.  It's bad enough that the top-100 hundred courses' greens fees are typically over $100.00. Now we have 15 or so pages of the October issue telling us  why and how to join a private country club for the rock bottom initiation fee of $6,500 to $9,000, with annual dues over $3,000--most clubs requiring monthly food minimums as well.

Average golfers know the value of their hard-earned dollar, what they can and cannot afford.  The game's popularity has begun to level off for recreational golfers, yet greens fees, golf attire and equipment costs have increased.  Ridiculously priced equipment, attire, shoes and belts are routinely featured in all publications.  So much that we need to spend more time, ads and articles in what is reality for the average golfer. In my younger days as a restauranteur we were careful not to price ourselves out of the market.  It is happening now in our sport.  We have to remember that a day of golf at the 'average' local course can cost over $100 from leaving the house to returning 4 hours later humbled by a little dimpled ball and a four inch hole in the ground. 

Golf Digest always provides excellent interviews, coverage and instruction in every issue. Unfortunately, the article regarding joining a private club only proliferates the idea that our sport is elitist and selective. 

I can now understand why some non-golfers think that way. I also can understand why some golfers do not play anymore.  They simply cannot afford it.
--Andy Jones

Thank you for your letters, gentlemen. We need those reminders, and frequently. Although we continue to believe that this is an opportune time for families considering a private club (not only for golf but for the other amenities and flexibility good clubs offer), it will never be for everyone.  Our golfing nation is a varied one. One golfer's bargain is another's out-of-reach luxury. But your basic message is unassailable: If we want new players to join our sport, we had better make it affordable. I think the golf industry is finally getting that message, too. This fall, you'll see a new initiative to bring adults into the game the way the First Tee has brought kids. It will be inexpensive. It is needed. Thanks for reminding us our sport is not about the money or prestige; it's about the enjoyment and camraderie--and that need not be expensive.

--Bob Carney

We talk a lot in the magazine and on this blog about bringing new players into the game--and the obstacles to keeping them. But we don't hear often from those new golfers themselves. Here's Clinton Hotchkiss of Yonkers, New York:

My name is Clinton and I just recently started golfing. So needless to say I am a +infinity handicap. Despite my obvious lack of ability however I have fallen hopelessly in love with this game. After playing only 2 holes and then being rained out I immediately went out and bought all of the necessary and unnecessary equipment.

Recently and most unfortunately, however, I have discovered that I simply cannot afford this game. I work in construction and having to pay 40$+ for greens fees is something that I simply cannot do every weekend. (And trust me I know that 40$+ is on the super low end.) Sure I can play twilight and pay only 25$ to walk, but only if it is to dark to see the ball!!! I know that a lot of money is required to maintain the course, but does it really have to be so expensive? I tried to play this past winter and some people still wanted me to pay 50$+ to walk IN THE FREEZING COLD!!!!!!! I realize that most unfortunately this is something that will never change, so I guess the love affair will have to continue through saved change and skipped lunches. I don't mean to whine, I'm just trying to understand.

I also wanted to let you know that your magazine has been the single greatest help to my golf game! Your instruction has even corrected my slice, something I never thought possible. So thank you very very much and keep up the excellent work.

Thanks, Clinton. Stay with it. And check out the Places to Play course finder on the home page of our web site for courses that might be even more affordable--or have earlier twilight hours.

--Bob Carney

I got this response to a recent post on the problem that a lot of think the game has: In our focus on competition, score, handicaps--in our seriousness about the game--we've turned off potential casual players who are simply looking for fun:

Hey Bob, golf's to too difficult a game for many people. It was designed to be taken seriously, not as a picnic outing. I have encountered too many with no regard for others playing the course. They need a different game.

Brutually honest, and, I'm sure, shared by a lot of you. During a Maine vacation last week, I got a lesson in that difficulty. My wife, myself and my 13-year-old son found Willowdale Golf Course near Portland and decided to walk nine. Conditions were soggy, not easy, the course playing long. I suggested to my son, Matt, a sometime golfer with a surprisingly good natural swing, that he and I play alternate shot or captain's choice, but he wanted to play his own ball. It was a struggle. He played parts of two holes, hit about 15 shots, couldn't overcome the "rights" and said he'd had enough. It just wasn't fun for him.

To my wife Julie's credit, she was fine with Matt's decision. He walked with us, we took photographs, enjoyed the beautiful surroundings. I was disappointed that he wasn't playing, but the fact is Matt was smart not to torture himself. It was vacation after all.

And so, yes, I understand that sometimes golf is too hard; it's just not fun, anymore than running the 100-yard-dash, which we're watching tonight from Bejing, would be fun for most of us. But I also know that for Matt golf can be enjoyable. And because my wife and I want to share this game with him, we'll continue to give him opportunities--and lessons, if he wants--and search for ways to make it fun for him. I remember Johnny Miller saying he used to take his boys to water hazards and encourage them to hit balls into the water, which they loved. We'll try it.

It's because the game can be so difficult, it seems to me, that we need to work really hard to make it enjoyable for beginners. (Maybe that begins with two-hole rounds!) In his own way, that's what Arnie did for those of us who followed him into the game. He showed us the excitement first, then the technique, and finally the score. If we want to the game to prosper, we better do the same.

--Bob Carney

Upon hearing the news of the USGA/R&A ruling on grooves, our friend and equipment guru Frank Thomas chimed: "It's the first step toward bifurcation." That is, in Thomas' view, the re-written regulation signals a time when recreation golfers will play under different equipment rules than professionals or high-level amateurs. And to Frank that's a good thing. Amateurs need all the breaks they can get, he believes, and the game, capital G, needs to make it more fun for weekenders who'll never threaten the scoring record at Goat Hills, much less Oakland Hills. (He makes the case in his new book, "Just Hit It." Tougher courses, faster greens, lusher rough have tended to make the game tougher and more time-consuming. More reason to quit or cut back.
It got me to thinking about two letters we received recently. One said, in effect, what's all this about "growing the game? Why do I want more people out there playing?" And at the other end of the spectrum the second said: "You folks worry about the tournament golf and all the rules that go with it. Just give me an experience of a couple of hours that I can do with my family."
That, to me, is the real bifurcation in the game. Serious golfer versus the guy or gal who's just playing for kicks. Walk a few holes, hit a few shots, don't worry about score.
When golf's industry leaders met this week, it was issue No. 1: How do we bring people to (or back to) the game? How do we convince the folks that think the game's too hard or too time-consuming to take another look? How do we suggest--heaven forbid--that maybe counting every shot and keeping stats and maintaining a handicap isn't the end all and be all. Maybe, for some people, having fun is.
The discussions will result in a new industry program by year's end. But in the meantime, we're hearing some fascinating ideas on how to bring new people into the game.
Here's one: It's called Power Play Golf. It's a nine-hole game with points awarded for shooting at greens with two flags: one white (easy) and one black (hard). A player gets bonus points for taking on the hard pins. In Great Britain, where it was born last year, it's quite competitive and played by new golfers and accomplished ones alike at some 2500 clubs. But it can be the perfect way for new players to get into the game, too. And it's always nine holes.
I hate to say it, having contributed to it in so many words over the years, but perhaps we inside the game have become too taken with score, too wedded to 18 holes, too worried about our handicaps to realize we're keeping people away. And maybe, just maybe, we might have more fun if we played a few more of those "casual" rounds from time to time. Whatever kind of grooves we've got.

--Bob Carney

Dan Goldbeck writes with a very logical question. We, in the golf world, assume that people know what we're talking about when we throw around terms such as "growing the game." It's not always so. And we also assume what we're promoting is great for everyone. As Dan suggests, maybe that's not the case.

Occasionally in your magazine I read about the idea of "growing the game of golf." This concept seems to be on the agenda of the PGA as well as the USGA. I wonder if you would please define exactly what is meant by the term. Also, could you explain if growing the game of golf would be beneficial to current golfers such as me. I should add that I have been playing golf for over 40 years and that I live on Long Island where it is not unusual to come across 4- and 5-hour waits for tee times.

Dan, I'll be it means a lot of different things to different people. I'll try to explain what we mean. Our position is based on the assumption that golf's popularity promotes its economy--the development of courses and equipment--affords more opportunities for golfers to fulfill their passion. Its born of a feeling that we want to share a great thing. We love the game; we want others to learn and care about it.

Is that a good thing for golf on Long Island? Is it a good thing for golf in Michigan? I'd say it depends on whom you ask. Our view is that if we want municipalities to continue to build and service golf courses, if we want equipment companies to continue to make better clubs and balls, if we want the game to flourish in future generations, post-Tiger Woods, then it needs to be promoted and we need to make it accessible to new players. You might say, we'll you want that because you want to sell golf magazines. Fair enough. And the PGA of America wants to make sure there is work for its members. And the PGA Tour wants to make sure there are audiences for its telecasts. All true.

But fundamentally, there's more to it than that. Golf is a game we love because of its values, its settings, its challenge, its opportunities for "athletes" of all levels. I'd hate for the game and its values to be lost to my son's generation because we didn't make an effort to welcome him--and left him to his video games. Or to my wife because we decided it was really a man's game. Or to folks on Long Island because we decided that it was crowded enough already. I hate slow play and I hate waiting. But what I hate worse is the condition of golf courses--or the absence of them--in places where golf was left behind. I mention Michigan because though the game is incredibly popular there, the present economy of my home state could hurt the game's long-term health. That would be a shame. I want municipalities and entrepreneurs to see our game as a source of revenue, provided they create the right venues, formats and opportunities.

So if the choice is "growing the game" or keeping it to ourselves because resources are too stretched in some places already, we'll vote for growing it--and facing the consequences as it gets more popular. If the game doesn't grow, your waits will get even worse as courses close and municipalities decide their are better things to do with that land.

--Bob Carney

Good, thoughtful letter this week from Daniel Phillips of Austin about Matt Rudy's "How Healthy is Our Game" story in the July Golf in the Business Life section. Phillips realizes that time and access are issues for new golfers--and some longtime golfers as well. To Phillips, 18-hole golf courses are, or ought to be, a thing of the past. Whether you buy all of his argument or not, it makes for a provocative read, especially in light of recent statistics that have rounds played trending flat.

The answers to the industry?s problems are right there in the article. While many people are interested in golf, the barriers to entry and ongoing enjoyment are too high. I chalk this up to lack of innovation in course development. Consider this, is there any product that we would buy today, unchanged over centuries? For example, would we want to buy and play the equipment used by early players? Certainly not, and equipment has made stunning progress since. On the other hand, golf courses still package and try to sell the same ancient 18-hole concept. This makes for a very expensive round of golf, both in terms of time and money.

Today?s golf course development has it backward. Vast areas are dedicated to the course (18 holes) and very little to practice areas. This business model leads to high fees, fewer rounds played, and players frustrated by a long day in the sun and too many bad shots. Players would be better off with the exact opposite set up - generous practice facilities and fewer holes. The smaller footprint would translate into lower real estate and operating expenses, and thus lower fees for players. I don?t fully understand golf course financials, but my bet is that re-packaging the ?product? would fix a lot of things.

Leave 18 holes to the tournament and resort players. Give the rest of us a two hour, nine-hole concept more consistent with modern life.

Not sure I'd cede all 18-hold rounds to tournament players, Daniel, but your desire for a faster golf experience is one of the reasons why industry leaders are now promoting leagues, which deliver exactly the experience you're calling for and can serve juniors, seniors, couples, singles or corporate groups. Over the long Fourth weekend, after outdoor work and other family obligations were out of the way--one of them was taking our son to computer "camp"--I had time for two nine-hole outings. As someone who used to argue that if you couldn't play 18 it wasn't worth taking out the clubs, I found both nines thoroughly enjoyable--and, under the circumstances, plenty of golf.

I'd love to hear how the rest of you feel about less-than-18 golf and Daniel's letter.

--Bob Carney

Peggy O'Toole takes offense at our dire predictions about Golf without Tiger Woods: Enough with all the hand-wringing already!

I really do not expect this email to get published but your recent issue regarding the status of golf now that
Tiger is out for the rest of the season really "infuriated" me.

I'm an avid golf fan and follower no matter who is playing and/or winning. . I recently attended the US Open at Torrey Pines and saw Tiger, Phil, etc what a wonderful experience. To me, the quality of golf and of all the other players is amazing.

My feelings are this: Yes, Tiger being out will be a loss for the PGA, but according to all the media and sports people supposedly "in the know" it all seems about the almighty dollar--how much money will be lost, how low the TV coverage will be, etc. etc. It's as though there is no PGA Tour without Tiger Woods. What about Mickelson, Els, etc. ? They don't seem to count for anything. even Paul Azinger--the new Ryder Cup captain putting his American team down--how sad is that!!!

My suggestion: if this is the case: Shut down the PGA Tour for the remainder of the season until 2009. That includes all tournaments, Golf Channel Coverage, Sports Announcers, Advertisers, golf magazines, cancel the Ryder Cup,.etc. Why bother covering anything golf related if no one seems to be satisfied unless Tiger is playing?

Isn't it time for a reality check ? Golf is a sport. Sure, Tiger is a phenom, but we have SO MANY very, very
talented professional golfers who are not even given any consideration.

You might enjoy a post by Geoff Shackelford a short while back. It was a letter he'd received from former USGA Executive Director Frank Hannigan, who made a point very similar to yours.

Ben Hogan, hit straight on by a fast moving bus, in the winter of 1948, after winning the US Open, had to sit our all of 1949. Golf survived. The four major winners in 1949 were Sam Snead (twice), Bobby Locke and Cary Middlecoff. Moreover, I'm sick of hearing of the huge money game being defined as "golf." As in "Golf is in dreadful shape with Tiger out. The British Open might just as well be Quad Cities.

By the way, golf has been stagnant during the era of Tiger Woods in terms of rounds played or golf balls sold. In Hogan's best days, golf boomed.

--Bob Carney

Lots of comment this morning about players being uncomfortable at the Masters this year. Geoff Shackelford talks about it today in our Dateline Augusta, quoting players and writers. This comfort thing is mostly related to the course.  Hootie Johnson's  changes, the changes to the changes, yesterday's weather, tough hole locations, etc. The Masters used to have a comfort level that other majors didn't. Players aren't feeling that this week.

But other changes are making non-players a bit uncomfortable. These changes are really about you: Readers. Patrons. Letter-writers. Golfers.  Maybe-golfers.

These changes suggest a significantly different attitude at Augusta and perhaps elsewhere:

Chairman Billy Payne opening an electronic suggestion box for ideas on growing the game..

Free admission for kids to the Masters...

Televising of the Par-3. (Despite some "Cliff Roberts would turn over in his grave" comments.

I'll add the tournament allowing its web site (and golfdigest.com) to send Marty Hackel, Mr. Style, out to talk to patrons about the "scene" here at Augusta...never been done before.

(While we're at it, let's range beyond this major into the next one, the Open, and add the fact the USGA and NBC are cooperating with Golf Digest's effort to put an average player on the US Open course at Torrey Pines. )

I'm sorry, did you say the Masters is asking for suggestions and the USGA has invited one of us hackers to come try it's Open setup? I would have bet large money against either of those things happening a few months ago.

Golf may be finally getting it--golf the Industry and the Game, not Trevor Immelman's round today. Not single-digit guys who play early Sunday morning and would just as soon you find another sport if you're going to mess with their starting time. Golf, the game too many kids don't have time for between soccer and World of Warcraft. Grass roots golf.

The fact is, Arnie's tee shot into the fog yesterday is a pretty fair metaphor for the state of our game. The old game is over and we don't know where the new one is going .  Arnie inspired a lot of us in the press room to find golf and we forget what a pain in the neck we must have been to the proper golfers of the day. We now find ourselves defending their turf.

What Billy Payne has done here may not be perfect. Maybe you're cynical about suggestion boxes. Maybe you've had it with cute kids in white bibs distracting Peter Kostis from important wedge shots.  Maybe mixing promotion with tradition for you is like stirring beer into your bourbon.

Or perhaps, at the other end, you're one of those readers who thinks it's not gone far enough and have decided the whole U.S. Open Contest is a "farce" because the finalists aren't 16-handicaps shooting 130.  We can't please y'all. But as Joe Steranka, the executive director of the PGA told me today, "We can talk about family golf all we want. But televising the Par 3, showing all those kids and their dads, that's more powerful than anything we could ever do."

Here's my suggestion to Chairman Payne: Keep it up. Keep stirring the pot. A Junior Masters? Why not. More international invitees? Of course. Golf in the Olympics? Absolutely. Who knows what will show up in that idea box.

And if it gets uncomfortable for some of us old ones, so be it. Arnie won't be with us forever. Nor will Tiger and let's face it, we want post-Tiger golf to do better than post-Michael basketball.  That will take new new Tigers, new Arnies.... 

It's not going to happen by itself. Send Billy a suggestion.

--Bob Carney

Bill Fields has won lots of support for his run for the presidency of golf. Two of latest supporters are Ohio reader Larry Nagy and highly-respected PGA professional Mike Hebron, of Long Island:

From Larry:

Fields for president! After reading Opinion, March 14 Bill Fields has my vote. Here are a couple more planks he might want to add to his platform. (1) Make the pros wear spikes in the retro silly-season event to give them a taste of chewed-up greens. (2) Ban the awkward terms ?three-metal?, ?fairway-metal?, ?metal-wood?, etc, that TV announcers struggle with, and restore the perfectly good name for these clubs, i.e., the ?spoon?. With these two planks Mr. Fields could run the gamut from the best (soft-spikes) to the worst (putting numbers on clubs) things ever to happen to the game of golf.

Research about the nature of learning finds that following ?how to? directions does not fully engage the higher cortex in the brain, where learning takes hold. Studies also show when learning, "general ,just in the ballpark suggestions? give a greater return on investment... than technical information filled with details.

"Pleasurable Game for All" is what the PGA call letters should stand for. During the last 20 years the golf industry has focused on the perfect swing, the perfect ball, the perfect set of clubs, and I could go on. For many this focus on perfection has put aside the pleasure of playing the game. Trying for perfection can create frustrations and makes the game less inviting for individuals, which does not grow the game for the golf industry.

Mike, I love that last comment. You know a lot more about the learning part than I do. But I know that it's a game of walking with a bit of swinging interspersed. Our obsession with that second part has sometimes kept us from enjoying the second. Thanks.

--Bob Carney

In case you missed it, here is Kiter's response to yesterday's rant about the industry's ability to grow the game, from someone who worked on one of those Mom and Pop courses I referred to:

Over the past few years, golf has been posing as hungry but not acting upon it accordingly. I grew up on a 9-hole course owned by my father and uncle. There were leagues for every type of player and all members knew Friday mornings belonged to the kids. Junior clinics began at 8am on the range (by age group) followed by 9 holes of play. Here I am, 12 years old and I'm helping my uncle teach the golf swing to 8- and 9-year olds. I loved it. I learned a lot about the swing by teaching it to kids when I was a kid. Not only was it inexpensive, but it helped grow golf in the area.

Now, it is difficult to find such a thing at any course around. Couples leagues have turned into a once-a-year tourney and most times you're not paired with your spouse because your spouse doesn't play. Not only should there be a push for juniors to play, but women especially. I'm the tournament director for a regional amateur tourney in my area and we have been having difficulty keeping the women's tournament active because of the lack of participation.

Club pros and course directors--both public and private--have to reach out and make golf a lifestyle again. Help re-sell used clubs to assist the beginners to get started. Hold beginners clinics at least a couple times a month--for all, not just members. Promote partial memberships--10 rounds, 20 rounds, 30 rounds, etc. Offer twi-light rates, "Mondays only" memberships, Junior day, anything along these lines.

Drive home the fact that golf is both sport and recreation and once learned, you can play it the rest of your life. It befuddles me to see so many pompous people involved in what used to be the "gentleman's sport".

Nothing is worse than visiting a course outside of your area only to be treated like an outsider who doesn't belong. Nothing is better than visiting a new course and being treated like a new family member, even just for a day.

When 60,000 people enter a contest to play the U.S. Open course, the sport's in good shape. We just get in our own way sometimes.

--Bob Carney

Allow me a rant.

I spent the weekend in Montauk, New York, at the tip of Long Island, where there's a beautiful public course called Montauk Downs. It's a 1928 Robert Trent Jones design draped over sand hills and around fishing ponds (the kids scatter with their poles when you come to the tee on No. 6), a bargain at the resident rate of $36 and even at the visitor rate of $72. So when the weather broke Saturday night my friend Rich and I looked forward to a fast, off-season round Sunday morning. It would be windy--it had been blowing about 40 miles an hour and was supposed to continue--but sunny and pretty dry, given the rains of 12 hours previous. The sand absorbs water out there like a sponge.

But nothing doing. "The course is closed," said the woman behind the register. At 9 o'clock there were only a few us wanted to go, all walkers, of course; there was no way they would allow carts out after the rain. "Sorry. Too wet. The range is open, though." We hit balls, but we were dying to play. The course looked pretty dry; we could see just two small puddles from our vantage point, looking out at four or five holes. (Later, we talked to a neighbor of Rich's, a golfer, who walked his dog on the course Sunday morning. "Oh, it was fine," he said. "No problem playing."

Hmm, I thought. This is the industry that's wringing its hands about decreased rounds and golfers lost to other activites. Let's say there were just 25 of us who wanted to walk the course on Sunday. Maybe a few friends like Rich and I, a couple of singles, maybe a dad or two and his kids. Maybe it was only $1,000 to the State of New York. The offices were open anyway. The pro shop was open. The range was open. What would have been the harm of letting 20 or 25 diehards walk and play the golf course? In the world of round-counting, we were low hanging fruit. (I remember playing at Tralee in Ireland two years ago. We played through the most ferocious wind and rain I'd ever encountered. As we finished, soaking wet, huge puddles lined the 18th fairway. We dried off, ate lunch and by the time we'd finished the sun was out and golfers were heading out again.) But at Montauk they were closed.

The fact, is golf isn't hungry. It talks hungry. It issues press releases as if it's hungry. But if it were really hungry, there would have been no question about golf on Sunday at Montauk Downs. If it were really hungry, there would be free clinics for kids every month at every public course. If it were really hungry, there would be after-school junior hours where kids could get access to local courses. If it were really hungry there would be nine-hole leagues for every conceivable human subdivision, from singles to sorority sisters, heck, maybe even six-hole leagues. If it were really hungry, I'd be writing about a crazy, gale-swept, laugh-out-loud, triple-digit round at Montauk on Sunday.

Golf ought to take a lesson from the Mom and Pop owners of the courses we grew up on who created couples outings, hit-and-giggle clinics, breakfast leagues, free hot dogs with rounds, you name it, to fill their "inventory". Or from Frank Thomas, the former USGA official whose new book, "Just Hit It", echoes this back-to-basics theme. "Golf really should be a simple and pleasant experience," says Frank. "The game began in nature," says Frank. "That's where we found satisfaction." Not in perfect conditions. Not even in big-name designs. That's all we wanted on Sunday, a little tussle with nature. Folks who understand why people play don't find reasons to shut their gates. They might warn us about the wet spots. But they enjoy crazies like Rich and me who would want to play in a 40-mile-an-hour wind. We're their customers.

--Bob Carney