Austinist: The Beginning of the End for Lions Municipal?

Numero Uno Guest

Thu, 18 Oct 2007 12:56:14 -0600

Actually, I have played Lions Muni a couple of times. I have also played Circle C, and Riverside and Cedar Creek in San Antonio. Lions is challenging because it is so darn narrow. And with the way I play, that means lots of drives onto adjoining fairways. I hope that Lions gets to stay. Austin ought to buy the land from the univeristy and keep it as a golf course. Still, that does not change the fact that golf has, and always will be, perceived as a "rich man's sport". Not just because some courses charge outrageous fees or because the newest chromotitaniummolypropyplene driver costs a ton. Golf takes lots of real estate, real estate that must be watered, groomed, and otherwise cared for so a bunch of rich (and not-so-rich) crackers can go out and whack a little ball with a stick. That is what golf & golf courses are perceived to be. Me, I enjoy golf - well, enjoy it as much as I can while I rack up snowmen on every hole...

Mowank

Thu, 18 Oct 2007 08:50:52 -0600

Golf sucks.

brain fuckler

Thu, 18 Oct 2007 07:37:03 -0600

I am sure Col Brackenridge will be stoked in heaven when his off spring can get cranberry throw pillows from the fucking Pottery Barn at Enfield and Exposition....

Grape Ape

Wed, 17 Oct 2007 16:49:56 -0600

I'm not sure how familiar you are with the game, but there are two (or three) breeds of golfers. There are those who play at Lions because it only costs $18 to play during the week and only $20 on the weekends. Usually these are people who paid $150-200 for a full set of clubs on Craigslist and they buy 36 balls for $10. This is who were are talking about and they are the majority of golfers imo. While I will agree that golf is an expensive sport in comparison to say soccer, it is still within the grasp of a lot of people. Golf isn't the $5000 annual membership and $120 greens fees and the world of $600 drivers in all cases, there is a low grade and a high grade of golfer, not to say that one is a better player or even person for that matter, but it exists. Taking away Lion's means taking away access to a sport that a lot of people love to hate and they love to do it at Lion's. It's a great location (why else would they want to develop it?) and its accessible to bus routes and other means of transportation that don't require you jump in an SUV and drive 40 miles into the hill country. On top of all of that, there are some very well known golfers that plaed this course and called it home and if there is a sport that is truly historic, it is golf.

Numero Uno Guest

Wed, 17 Oct 2007 13:16:13 -0600

I hope Lions Municipal gets to stay, too. Though I am a bit surprised at all of support for it. Golf is a "rich man's sport", and if I have learned anything on this site it is that wealth and being successful is bad...

myname

Wed, 17 Oct 2007 10:57:44 -0600

The working man doesn't need to play golf anyway. Tear that place down and put up an upscale shopping center with a spa and good restaurants. Not a Wal-Mart, of course. God forbid we allow a place for the working man to shop. We'll need to provide subsidies and tax breaks to the developers. Just think of the jobs created for the working man. We'll even run buses to the site for him so he can get to work. Or her. Women need to work, too.

h o l y s h i t a k i

Tue, 16 Oct 2007 20:16:31 -0600

I agree. I love Lions...

Grape Ape

Tue, 16 Oct 2007 17:59:25 -0600

Yet another piece of Austin on the chopping block. Getting rid of Lions would be a shame.