by Bill Robertson
Stop complaining about not being able to play this fabulous golf course and go out and make money and become important enough to join these types of clubs. Or, get out and move in the right circles and meet people who will invite you to play at their clubs. I have played Newport C.C. many times and its certainly worth the effort. These members certainly deserve their privacy.

by Scott Spears
Blue-blood clubs have cornered the market on good clubs. They have the money not only to have them built, but to maintain them... and guard them. If most weekend hackers had a chance at some of them, they would lose much of their mystical quality simply because no one understood what was going on, and a move to get Rae's Creek filled in would be under way.
The USGA does need to get off its high horse and start taking its championships to public courses. There are many that were built by the same guys that put together Oakland Hills (Ross), Winged Foot (Tillinghast), and Riviera (Thomas). The duffer also needs to stop complaining every time they encounter a design they can't figure out and don't like because it doesn't look like a TPC.
If public courses take the same pride and care in not only creating but preserving their courses as exclusive private clubs, not only will the USGA start looking at them, but more golfers will learn what makes for good designs. They should cut corners in the "pretty" department (if it says muni, who cares if there is clover growing on the green and the bunker sand is brown?), but never, ever, in the design department.

by Bert
I just played in the Colorado USGA Senior Am Sectional, and at a private club. The last 3 have been played at public or semi-private clubs, and were great experiences. This year was the worst; practice rounds were limited to Tues-Thurs after 1 P.M. at full rate, yardage was skimpy to non-existent in the fairways, there was no yardage book, and the greens were littered with dead poa. No more contributions to the USGA for this kind of play, and I'll have to reconsider my recently received membership renewal also, after Nina's comments.

by Nina
I agree that the USGA should have more prestige events at public-access courses, and that it is hypocritical for its president to belong to exclusionary clubs. But all the editorials about what the USGA leadership should do are likely to fall on deaf ears. Why? Because the USGA is still overwhelmingly an association of members of private country clubs. That's who elects its officers, and hires its management.
According to the USGA's by-laws, only golf clubs can become full voting members. A club is not defined as a course, but as a group of members that oversees play -- which means most truly public courses are not eligible for full membership. (Sure, you belong to the "golf association" of a muni or public course if you keep your handicap there. But do you set the policies and oversee play? No - the management does.)
The 700,000+ ordinary golfers who pay annual "dues" - most in the mistaken belief that they are actually USGA members - have absolutely zero say in the organization. The "Members' Program" is a dishonest name for what is basically a subscription program for donations.
It is also a little-known fact that "Clubs Without Real Estate" can become true members -- and that is the only effective way for public golfers to influence the USGA. So here's a tip: pool your $25 a year USGA "dues" with 10 or more friends, and form a club. For $100 a year, that club can really belong to the USGA, have a vote - and you'll all still get a rulebook each year.