Should a test be required before playing public course?

[gregsandiego]

When I see golf courses around here adding "foot golf", and others closing, I think the idea of a qualifier test is laughable.

[CR McDivot]

What if someone opened a course that had pre-reqs?  Perhpas a basic ettiquette test plus demonstration of some basic ability to strike a golf ball.  Would you pay more to play such a course than an otherwise identical track elsewhere?  Presumably, bunkers would be better raked, pace of play would be better, etc. 

 

In this free country, private courses are free to establish whatever requirements for membership or play that they deem appropriate. Most (but certainly not all) consider the financial ability of the prospect above other considerations.

Public (muni) facilities are prohibited by law from discrimination based on class, ethnicity, religion or race. If one can pay the green fee, one can play.

The ability of the player is not a reason to ban said player, that player has as much right to the public facility as any. A well managed public course will encourage all players to observe good etiquette and consideration of all other players, the course, and the employees.

The well managed public course will also offer various levels of lessons on both etiquette and skills. These orientation and skill lessons are completely voluntary on the part of the player, and cannot be required by the public facility.

However, I am quite sure that if one displayed disruptive behavior on the facility one could be banned.

[tdiii]

In this free country, private courses are free to establish whatever requirements for membership or play that they deem appropriate. Most (but certainly not all) consider the financial ability of the prospect above other considerations.

Public (muni) facilities are prohibited by law from discrimination based on class, ethnicity, religion or race. If one can pay the green fee, one can play.

The ability of the player is not a reason to ban said player, that player has as much right to the public facility as any. A well managed public course will encourage all players to observe good etiquette and consideration of all other players, the course, and the employees.

The well managed public course will also offer various levels of lessons on both etiquette and skills. These orientation and skill lessons are completely voluntary on the part of the player, and cannot be required by the public facility.

However, I am quite sure that if one displayed disruptive behavior on the facility one could be banned.

That would not be discrimination.  It is a prerequisite that any person of any sex, color, creed could meet. 

[CR McDivot]

That would not be discrimination.  It is a prerequisite that any person of any sex, color, creed could meet. 

Is the lack of ability a disability?

Public is public...

If I have trouble reading as well as you, am I required to pass a test to go to the public library?

Should I supply a 300 batting average to use the local public ball field?

What is it about lesser skilled players that gives one a right to exclude them from public courses?

Edited October 27, 2015 by CR McDivot

[Tat14]

When I see golf courses around here adding "foot golf", and others closing, I think the idea of a qualifier test is laughable.

This is a good point. Golf at large desires more accessibility and there has been a concern about the average-Joe market for awhile. People don't have as much disposable income, time for 18, etc.

I think any idea that even appears exclusionary is a non-starter.

Golf has always had hackers (like me). The numerous starters, marshals, playing partners, and course loudmouths all help move the game along. Sometimes a bit slower than you'd like.

There are some really cool ideas in this thread though; anything teaching the fundamentals of the game at a cost or not. Proud to say my local track offers clinics that for a meager fee include a meal or drink, etc. The idea is to bring the next generation in so course(s) don't die.

[tdiii]

Is the lack of ability a disability?

Public is public...

If I have trouble reading as well as you, am I required to pass a test to go to the public library?

Should I supply a 300 batting average to use the local public ball field?

What is it about lesser skilled players that gives one a right to exclude them from public courses?

Discrimination is only illegal if against a protected class.  Golfers are not a protected class; i.e., Federal law prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, gender, pregnancy, national origin (including affiliation with a Native American tribe), religion, disability, citizenship status, genetic information, and age.

Don't you have to go to middle school before you can go to high school?  Don't you have to complete HS or get your GED or take the SAT to go to a public college? Don't you have to pass a driver's test to drive a car? 

It is not illegal and woud even be permissible on a municipal course.  Whether it would be good for the game or a sustainable business practice, who knows?

Edited October 27, 2015 by tdiii

[vangator]

Driving on public roads requires a pretty severe competency test.  Driving on fairways should at least have a minimum of basic rules and especially etiquette.

[CR McDivot]

 

It is not illegal and woud even be permissible on a municipal course.  Whether it would be good for the game or a sustainable business practice, who knows?

Welcome to the soviet socialist states of america!

Not too surprising from Califoricate.

[CR McDivot]

Driving on public roads requires a pretty severe competency test.  Driving on fairways should at least have a minimum of basic rules and especially etiquette.

As long as this is voluntary, I have no problem.

As a requirement to play a public course I think this goes over the bounds.

Operating a motor vehicle moving at a reasonably high rate of speed on a public thoroughfare is a bit different than launching worm burners down a relatively narrow area in the general direction of an unoccupied green.

Either situation, however only requires enforcement of individual responsibility in the case of harm to others.

It's called Liberty. Requires tolerance and responsible behavior in equal measure.

Neither authoritarianism nor licentiousness has any place in a free society.

[Fourputt]

As long as this is voluntary, I have no problem.

As a requirement to play a public course I think this goes over the bounds.

Operating a motor vehicle moving at a reasonably high rate of speed on a public thoroughfare is a bit different than launching worm burners down a relatively narrow area in the general direction of an unoccupied green.

Either situation, however only requires enforcement of individual responsibility in the case of harm to others.

It's called Liberty. Requires tolerance and responsible behavior in equal measure.

Neither authoritarianism nor licentiousness has any place in a free society.

The way I see it, a course should make it clear that they are supplying the tools a player needs to know the "rules of the road" as far as etiquette and pace of play, respect for the course and for the other players on the course.  That done, then they should also make it clear that they will enforce those policies regardless of whether the player availed himself of the provided information or not.  A delinquent player would have nothing to stand on in protest if he is subsequently caught short on any of those rules or policies.

Sorry, but the founding fathers never considered unlimited access to a golf course as one of the fundamental human rights.

[tdiii]

As long as this is voluntary, I have no problem.

As a requirement to play a public course I think this goes over the bounds.

Operating a motor vehicle moving at a reasonably high rate of speed on a public thoroughfare is a bit different than launching worm burners down a relatively narrow area in the general direction of an unoccupied green.

Either situation, however only requires enforcement of individual responsibility in the case of harm to others.

It's called Liberty. Requires tolerance and responsible behavior in equal measure.

Neither authoritarianism nor licentiousness has any place in a free society.

Your arguments are interesting.  The law, however, is as I've described.  It would be legally permissible to create prerequisites to play public courses. 

[newtogolf]

Your arguments are interesting.  The law, however, is as I've described.  It would be legally permissible to create prerequisites to play public courses. 

It's not a question of discrimination but the grounds you could use to restrict access to public property.  Federal and State parks don't require a basic competency test for camping or barbequing on their grounds.  Public pools and beaches don't require swimming certifications prior to entering and there is the potential for personal injury in all of those cases. 

I can't see how a public course could ever get away with mandating prerequisites for someone to enter the property and play golf. 

Edited October 28, 2015 by newtogolf

[tdiii]

It's not a question of discrimination but the grounds you could use to restrict access to public property.  Federal and State parks don't require a basic competency test for camping or barbequing on their grounds.  Public pools and beaches don't require swimming certifications prior to entering and there is the potential for personal injury in all of those cases. 

I can't see how a public course could ever get away with mandating prerequisites for someone to enter the property and play golf. 

 

Just because the parks don't mandate it doesn't mean it is not permissible. 

Even so, the Parks do mandate a competency test.  If you go to Yellowstone National Park and pull a backcountry permit, you are required to sit through a movie about proper food handling practices in bear country.

Edited October 28, 2015 by tdiii

[vangator]

When we used to go camping, we had to pull a fire permit.

Shooting ranges I've been to require you sit through a movie before participating.  Same should be required of golf.

[Pete F]

Sure you can put restrictions on who can golf. Lets see if that makes the next ten years even less successful than the last ten for the growth of golf.

The reason I suggested "free lessons" is not to get anybody something for free. The free lesson is pretty self serving for the golf business. 

All you learn is some basic etiquette rules that added to what you learned in kindergarten make you a well behaved golfer,  How to hold the club, swing the club and move things along,  What to expect. A couple of videos you can watch on your phone.  You can even suggest that they go to the range first and then play twiilight some day.The opportunity is there to upsell people to paid lessons and owning golf clubs, you have now met them and as long as they have a decent experience hopefully will want to do it again. They are on the road to being successful golfers. 

Of course you can just let them try and play golf, probably as successful as just tossing people into the water to teach them to swim. You'll get their money once.

Edited October 28, 2015 by Pete F
add

[newtogolf]

 

Just because the parks don't mandate it doesn't mean it is not permissible. 

Even so, the Parks do mandate a competency test.  If you go to Yellowstone National Park and pull a backcountry permit, you are required to sit through a movie about proper food handling practices in bear country.

It might be permissible but is it enforceable.  How do the public courses determine if someone is "qualified" to play?  Is there a registration system, id card to certify who's certified and who isn't? 

If there are id cards, who pays for them and the system to maintain the list of "qualified golfers"? 

You're talking about a lot of infrastructure and money without any certainty that pace of play will improve or stupid people still won't ruin you round.   

[tdiii]

It might be permissible but is it enforceable.  How do the public courses determine if someone is "qualified" to play?  Is there a registration system, id card to certify who's certified and who isn't? 

If there are id cards, who pays for them and the system to maintain the list of "qualified golfers"? 

You're talking about a lot of infrastructure and money without any certainty that pace of play will improve or stupid people still won't ruin you round.   

I was addressing the question of whether requiring some sort of prerequisites would be legal.  The hokey argument has been floated that it would not be legal.  That is simply wrong, but you are now pointing to a separate host of issues.   

No system can be perfect.  To answer your question as to how courses determine who is qualified to play, we know in Europe some courses have written and practical tests.  Just like a driver's license, you could apply to take the test and get issued an ID card that would allow you to play certain courses (or, perhaps, certain tees at certain courses).  

Would it improve pace of play?  I've played only in Ireland and Sweden so my sample size is tiny, but pace of play flew compared to what I see here, particularly on the local public and muni courses.  I know  Sweden has this kind of testing protocol and it seems to work there. 

Would the bunkers get raked, ball marks replaced, etc.?  I don't know.  I suspect it might improve a bit.  Maybe not as well as my preferred alternative of posting snipers randomly on all courses to just shoot folks who screw up.  

At the end of the day, since it is legal and public courses have not chosen to implement these kinds of things, I have to assume they have done the cost benefit analysis and draw the conclusions you would:  too much of a hassle for questionable improvement.

Me?  I would pay a few extra bucks to know that folks who are playing the course have some general ability to get around it quickly, are playing from the correct tees, and are apt to follow basic ettiquette.  I am a member of a private club so have put my money where my mouth is. 

[Lihu]

Voted for the booklet.

If brings back "memories" of my past. . .The first time I went on a course it was with my kids, and we were kicked off for taking too long on the first tee box. So, the next thing to do was to hit all the par 3 and the 9 hole courses. Turns out you need to be reasonable to play the 9 hole courses too.

Then I went though that "intolerant of slow play bogey golfer guy" phase. . .

At this point in time, if I see a slow party, I give them some slack. I pass them if they let me or just skip holes. If I am playing with other people we just wait it out, doesn't change my game any more and gives me a chance to enjoy the scenery.