The arrival of the £1000 round of golf

The game needs to be quicker, not more expensive

This week Trump Turnberry announced that its Ailsa course will be the first one in Britain to charge a green fee of £1000 ($1290) for one round. That’s what punters will have to pay from next June if they want to tee it up before 1 pm and aren’t staying in the resort’s five-star hotel. It’s more than six times what the course’s previous Dubai based owner charged before Donald Trump bought it ten years ago.

The last of Turnberry’s four Open Championships was played in 2009. At the time of Trump’s purchase it was thought to be in the running for a fifth in 2020. Trump immediately set about improving the property and the changes which followed were widely acclaimed when it reopened in 2016. Without a change of ownership, however, it’s very unlikely the Open will return there any time soon so it’ll be interesting to see if the higher green fee impacts on demand at all.

Over on the other side of the pond the cost of playing the best courses tends to be higher than in Europe. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with that. The quality and conditioning of the courses, as well as the greater luxury of the off course facilities, usually justifies the price. And if billionaires want to pay an additional premium for greater privacy, well, good luck to them. From time to time ordinary mortals may be invited to enter this exclusive world for a day or two.

But if the impression is created that all the best courses can only be accessed at huge cost the game will not benefit. Some aspiring young golfers, capable of playing well enough to enjoy it but not so talented they can earn their living at it, might even be deterred from taking it up in the first place.

Two days ago an article on the BBC news website gushingly declared that Turnberry “is widely rated as one of the top five courses in the world”. Well, it’s certainly very good indeed but Golf Magazine’s international rankings don’t even place it in the top five in the UK.

The article had no by line which suggests the writer isn’t a golf specialist and may have been too idle to do more than reproduce a press release. Was his or her judgment impressed by the amount of the green fee? Or possibly influenced by something its owner said? He is after all, if I can say this gently without upsetting my many American friends who are loyal Republican supporters, no slouch when it comes to hype.

Be all that as it may, some of us believe passionately that golf is a sport which benefits mankind. The great theatre and opera director Jonathan Miller was once asked what single thing he would send to another civilisation as a gift to represent our world? He replied “The collected works of Johann Sebastian Bach”, before adding, “but that would be boasting”.

Indeed it would, but a species that produces a genius such as Bach is entitled to show off. If I could hear the music of only one composer for the rest of my life it would be Bach. Yet there is another gift that would be even more valuable to its recipients - the game of golf.

It is the game that resembles life so closely that true addicts know it’s actually the other way round; the game played in more beautiful and varied surroundings than any other; the game whose handicap system enables players of differing ability, age and gender to play competitively against each other.

Those of us who love the game, and believe in its importance, should therefore do everything possible to ensure its survival. Late in the day, but probably just in time, men have realised that the future depends on attracting more women to play. This is a timely reflection, because next Thursday the AIG Women’s Open starts at St Andrews.

I remember the feeling of real excitement in the R&A clubhouse in 2007 when this event was played on the Old course for the first time. This year I’ll only see it on television, sadly, but I’ve played the course often enough to understand the challenges the world’s best women will face and much look forward to watching them.

Following hard on the heels of the Women’s Open is the Curtis Cup at Sunningdale. There’s a special pleasure in attending amateur events where the galleries are always knowledgeable and you can walk the course alongside the players. Like many men I always feel I learn more watching the rhythmical swings of the best women than their male counterparts. There’ll be more to say about this two weeks from today.

In an era when attention spans are shortening, and many people’s lives are busier than ever, a real threat to golf is the length of time it takes to play a round. The easiest way to deal with this is to make two ball, alternate shot, foursomes the norm instead of the much duller four ball format on which almost all golfers seem to be fixated. No less an authority than Bobby Jones, the greatest amateur of all, described alternate shot foursomes as “a far better test and a more enjoyable method of play than the four ball match”.

The time problem is exacerbated by the recurring need to lengthen courses. Outgoing R&A CEO Martin Slumbers mentioned in his recent, though possibly not last, valedictory reflections the progress made towards addressing the challenge of golf balls being hit longer and longer distances. This is indeed welcome but continues to advance at a snail’s pace.

I have a radical suggestion to speed this up. A wealthy benefactor must be persuaded to fund the construction of a new course of no more that six thousand yards. This will contain four par five holes of only five hundred yards which are out of reach with anything less than a very long drive and a perfectly struck three wood.

“Impossible” I hear you say. “Not at all” I will reply. On this course you will not bring your own golf balls. Instead you will play with a ball supplied by its owner, mirroring the practice followed in tennis where the All England Club supplies all the balls used at Wimbledon. Even the longest hitters will not be able to drive the balls used at this new course more than 250 yards.

The course will be designed explicitly for two ball alternate shot golf. It will be the only format permitted. A path from the back of every green will enable the non-driving players to walk forward at least a hundred and fifty yards down the next fairway while their partners move to the next tee and prepare to hit their tee shots. This will enable a competitive and unhurried round to be completed in little more than two hours.

Before you dismiss this idea as crackpot, reflect on its benefits. Shorter courses don’t only mean quicker rounds. They reduce maintenance costs and require less water, an increasingly important consideration. In turn, lower costs will enable the green fees paid for alternate shot foursomes to be much cheaper, maybe 50 per cent cheaper, than those charged for players who insist on hitting their own ball.

Above all, faster golf increases the supply of one precious commodity which even the wealthiest golfer in the world cannot buy because every human that’s ever lived has the same supply of it each day - time.

I think this idea could catch on once there’s a course brave enough to introduce it. Please tell me what you think.

ENDS