SPDB,
With apologies, I do not have access to a computer while working so I can't pop in. Furthermore, since I'm being asked to connect the dots for everyone here, tying the culture of a country club into the effect of that culture on architecture is going to take some time. Therefore, the fact that thread has sat here for two days without such a connection is a testament to the patience of the moderators and hopefully, their respect for my opinion. I am gracious for the chance and opportunity.
As I've stated, the idea here is not to challenge the right of a club to set standards of action for their members. The mention of my continued participation in Boy Scouts was an attempt to point out that I accepted the right of the Boy Scouts of America to allow units to mandate uniforms for participation in their activities. I acknowledge this right, understand the purpose, and accept the consequences of such actions. I believe the uniform does help with programming and further the values we set to demonstrate and identify.
I also acknowledge the right of the golf or country club to mandate certain dress codes and codes of conducts for its members on its property. This, too, was never my point of contention. Where my problem lies is in the immediate acceptance of these standards and the seeming lack of understanding of the potential or already occurring circumstances of such a standard.
The point that I think is being missed here is that the country club, our attire and playing golf are 3 mutually exclusive things. I think we are all in agreement that we play and enjoy the game for reasons other than membership at a privileged club or dressing in a certain well-groomed manner. This is the first point that must be acknowledged in order to follow my line of thinking.
Point A: Golf is a game enjoyed by its participants for the mental, physical and emotional challenges presented over the course of a round.
I've heard mention that Golf has addictive qualities, and this certainly could be true. We find ourselves thinking about the game, the courses and challenges throughout the day. We sit in anticipation of our next round, especially when scheduled in advance. We relish the challenge of different or new courses. Indeed, one of the inherent novelties and attractions of the game is that there is ALWAYS somewhere "new" to play.
It is at this last point where two very important factors enter the equation. First, the motivation of the golfer to play elsewhere. Yes, there are many golfers who may play one course 97% of the time and enjoy the game as much as the next guy. However, rarely do we find a golfer who plays exclusively at one place. The second factor is the need for diversity, in order for the first factor mentioned in this paragraph to derive satisfaction, there must be diversity. Luckily, golf is played on courses of such a scale that simply changing the location provides enough diversity for most.
I do acknowledge that not every golfer thinks this way, but I think it's safe to say that every golfer who posts on this forum does. Why else would there be discussion of different golf courses and their designs. So perhaps I am speaking right now of roughly... 70% of golfers.
Now to the point. At some point, the golfer must make a choice and compromise. I grew up playing a municipal course where the only requirement of dress was soft spikes and a shirt with a collar. Any other attire was deemed appropriate and many of my early rounds were in after-school practice with a golf shirt untucked in the jeans I wore that day. Soon, I began wondering how my skills could be tested anywhere, as unlike basketball 10 feet on the east side is not 10 feet on the west side. Naturally, I sought out courses of similar "pedigree" as the muni I learned the game upon. This expanded my course experience to maybe... 5 or 6 places.
At the age of 15, not much mattered to me. I enjoyed golf. I would do anything to play golf and in order to acquiesce my desire to play more venues, I would have to make my first compromise:
Following a more stringent dress code.
The first thing to go was the denim, and the shirt got tucked in and a belt added. I began caddying, and on Mondays, I had to wear the caddy's uniform of a white shirt and khakis along with the assigned caddy's hat. This was, naturally, to make me stand out in case something happened in which case the privilege could be suspended, this is a side point but it represents the ultimate in my concession to dress codes.
I am willing to believe that MOST every poster on this board was exposed to golf before graduation from high school, or even college. I do not know this, but I think that people who are exposed to the game at a later age are not as intense about the game or the golf courses as we, the frequent contributor are.
The point is this: Golf at courses with dress codes will attract the type of person who is willing to concede a freedom (outside of monetary freedom) to play the game. This is where the issue lies. When a person is willing to concede one thing (no matter the perceived importance) that person WILL be tested as to how far the concessions can go.
Supported play, meaning with a caddy or golf cart during certain times makes a golfer either concede an extra fee to play, or limits the golfer to playing at certain times of a day.
Green committees will make decisions to change the playability or conditioning of the golf course because we concede those decisions to them.
Give the devil and inch, and he'll take a mile.
Naturally, at some point the members do say, "Stop!" but by that point, it's usually too late. The culture bred by such codes is that of "obedience or denial." We do not make waves because we fear the consequences of being excluded from that one "new to us" golf course. While I do understand that for many, the dress codes at country clubs do coincide with their everyday attire (in fact, through most of high school and college, this was true of me). However, I believe that one reason dress codes never get challenged is the fear of being branded and criticized as I have been in this thread, and denied access to other golf courses.
This type of culture excludes and even turns off an essential personality type to any group: the person who is willing to challenge an established norm for the sake of reevaluating the values of the group in question. The idea here is not to rid the country of country clubs with dress codes, nor to stomp on the time honored and accepted behaviors that surround the game but to ensure that we are constantly scrutinizing and re-evaluating those values for the sake of advancement and the freshness of ideas.
It is on that last point where the Boy Scout comparison falls through. The values and ethics of the Boy Scouts ARE constantly challenged and always have been. They are seen as dynamic and changing and open discourse is permitted and encouraged. Most country clubs do not fall into this category and those that do are challenged from the outside (Augusta National v. Martha Burk or the PGA of America v. Shoal Creek) and not from internal forces. One thing Hootie Johnson did right in his response to Martha Burk was to word the response in such a way that left the possibility of future female members at Augusta. I believe this is why only a handful of people showed up to protest as Augusta showed that it DOES constantly critique and re-evaluate its values - albeit at a slow pace.
With this being said, it no longer surprises me that golfers are willing to concede to playing dross and banal golf courses and that the idea of mass-produced golf courses from name design firms. It also no longer surprises me that PGA Tour Player signature designs that are so watered down and lacking in character are popular and able to make money. The heaviest and most influential institutions of the game, by their design, support concession and sameness by making golfers choose very early on to concede to a certain set of rules in order to satisfy a fundamental appeal of the game.
Now, this may seem too ideal, and I thought that it was until today when I realized that there exists a club where the only thing required to join is an interest in the game of golf and in golf architecture...
GOLFCLUBATLAS.com
Is it any small wonder that this forum, without pretense to any sort of conduct outside of accepted courtesies and devoid of all superficial behavior requirements like dress codes and other hoops through which to jump, is a haven for free thinking, creative application of golf course designs and deep relationships? We are a very diverse lot, and one of free thinkers and those willing to challenge...
...and it's a good thing.