Should a test be required before playing public course?

[vangator]

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.

Testing would mean improved play.  Less successful means less people clogging the golf courses!  Win, Win!

Edited October 28, 2015 by vangator

[Lihu]

Testing would mean improved play.  Less successful means less people clogging the golf courses!  Win, Win!

But possibly less golf courses from which to choose. . .

[vangator]

But possibly less golf courses from which to choose. . .

Possibly, but supply and demand could bring the cost down.

[Lihu]

Possibly, but supply and demand could bring the cost down.

or up if there are less courses from which to choose. Like any business, if there are less customers they usually shut down.

[ghalfaire]

I finally seemed to hove voted with the majority on something, I voted for the booklet or handout.  I believe the handout should include some "expectations" on things like pace of play, what you need do if you're a hole behind and a reminder that others need to enjoy the course and game too.  So I would have voted for public courses need to have rangers on the course that observe and speak to or in some cases remove non rule observing (and I don't mean USGA rules) foursomes.