News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Phil McDade

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Not OT
« Reply #50 on: November 07, 2007, 11:29:06 PM »
I will go see a movie simply because Clooney is in it....

And I don't avoid golf courses where folks wear cut-offs jeans and muscle shirts.


Tim Bert

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Not OT
« Reply #51 on: November 07, 2007, 11:30:21 PM »
Which brings me back to my previous question...  

What is it exactly that you want to wear on a golf course and what about pants (or shorts) and a golf shirt make you so uncomfortable?

Kyle Harris

Re:Not OT
« Reply #52 on: November 07, 2007, 11:30:25 PM »
Kyle, The best answer I can come up with is...out of respect for others around you.
That is completly within the spirit of the sport.

 But, in actuality, it is our own Bob Huntley whose arguments have ressonated the truth of the matter. His disdain for the person who has the gawdawfulest looking legs, yet insists on wearing shorts that show too  much of a bad thing.

Trust me, I have gone full circle on this issue. I onced believed as you do in this thread, that it shouldn't matter what I wear, since it does not gaurantee ungentlemanly behavior. But, if you are out in public one should consider looking presentable. If for no other reason than it actually makes you feel better, have more confidence and who knows? maybe Play better.

"What not to wear" on TLC is a great place to learn some fundementals.

I'll share one story about a local pro on the Monterey peninsula. He was scheduled to play in Bing's clambake and showed up for a Wednesday practice round at Pebble. On the tee were Chi Chi and the two gentleman who flew him up from Puerto Rico. The starter went over to Mr. Roduiquez(sp?) and asked if a local pro could join their threesome. He said "No problem" and was introduced. Chi Chi took one look at this guy with his soiled canvas bag and his dirty shoes and said "You a pro, mon? Musta been a tough year". Well this guy proceeds to birdie the first and eagles the second. Whereupon Chi Chi walked up to him and apologized for his earlier comment.



Adam,

I'd go crazy trying to adjust myself to show respect for others around me.

I'm a nice guy, enjoyable company for most and generally agreeable. I am accepting and loving.

If you can't see past what I'm wearing and notice that, frankly, you don't deserve to know me because I won't waste time proving to you who I am at the expense of those who already know.

Tim Bert

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Not OT
« Reply #53 on: November 07, 2007, 11:32:06 PM »
I will go see a movie simply because Clooney is in it....

And I don't avoid golf courses where folks wear cut-offs jeans and muscle shirts.



Well, you and I cancel one another out on the Clooney issue!

I also don't avoid courses which allow a relaxed dress code, but I don't specifically seek them out either because I know I'm going to wear the same thing no matter where I play.

Kyle Harris

Re:Not OT
« Reply #54 on: November 07, 2007, 11:32:08 PM »
Which brings me back to my previous question...  

What is it exactly that you want to wear on a golf course and what about pants (or shorts) and a golf shirt make you so uncomfortable?

Depends on my mood, as it does with all of us in terms of dress. Tonight to class I wore a collared shirt and jeans. The point is, outside of practical considerations (if it's cold, wet, hilly, hot...) why should I have to adapt myself?

Some days I'll be dressed up, other days in gym shorts and a t-shirt.

I want to be able to act on my mood!

Kyle Harris

Re:Not OT
« Reply #55 on: November 07, 2007, 11:37:17 PM »

Quote

Golf in America got rolling as a deeply aristocratic pastime.


Quote

As it did in its country of origin -- Scotland. If not aristocratic, certainly a game for the very well-off -- equivalant in some ways today to polo in America.

I'd challenge that. Big time. It was played on useless public lands. Shared with goatherds and merchantmen.

I think golf became aristrocratic when people started BUYING LAND on which to play it. The minute the course became a real estate venture was the minute aristocracy took over.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2007, 11:37:42 PM by Kyle Harris »

Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Not OT
« Reply #56 on: November 07, 2007, 11:39:47 PM »
Kyle, Did it ever occur to you that sweater folders sell collard shirts?
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

Kyle Harris

Re:Not OT
« Reply #57 on: November 07, 2007, 11:41:08 PM »
Adam, I'm not following...

Michael Moore

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Not OT
« Reply #58 on: November 07, 2007, 11:42:52 PM »
If the institutions of the game are making people like her stay away and not come near it... something is VERY wrong.

Kyle -

A while back I met a tall, green-eyed redhead who was an exceptional athlete.

This was before Tiger Woods turned modern golf on its ear. She thought that golf was a foolish, elitist, environmentally destructive pursuit.

Over time she became more and more curious about my devotion to golf. Finally, one day we set off to the driving range. She was a natural and was hitting the ball through the air in no time. She said that she wanted to get geared up, take some lessons, and join me for the occasional nine.

Dressing up for these outings was a key component of her enthusiasm for golf. I will never forget the joy that both of us derived from her in the spats, skirt and collared tank top.

Please don't forget that the possibility of wearing new, fine, provocative clothing could attract people to the game.
Metaphor is social and shares the table with the objects it intertwines and the attitudes it reconciles. Opinion, like the Michelin inspector, dines alone. - Adam Gopnik, The Table Comes First

Tim Bert

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Not OT
« Reply #59 on: November 07, 2007, 11:43:40 PM »
Dress code?  What dress code?



Kyle Harris

Re:Not OT
« Reply #60 on: November 07, 2007, 11:44:41 PM »
...is it any wonder that he is one of the more well-respected and influential architects of the past 15 years?

I think the very fact that Tom Doak allowed himself to be photographed like that in what I'm assuming was a candid shot is a high testament to his artistic integrity.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2007, 11:46:59 PM by Kyle Harris »

Kyle Harris

Re:Not OT
« Reply #61 on: November 07, 2007, 11:45:46 PM »
If the institutions of the game are making people like her stay away and not come near it... something is VERY wrong.

Kyle -

A while back I met a tall, green-eyed redhead who was an exceptional athlete.

This was before Tiger Woods turned modern golf on its ear. She thought that golf was a foolish, elitist, environmentally destructive pursuit.

Over time she became more and more curious about my devotion to golf. Finally, one day we set off to the driving range. She was a natural and was hitting the ball through the air in no time. She said that she wanted to get geared up, take some lessons, and join me for the occasional nine.

Dressing up for these outings was a key component of her enthusiasm for golf. I will never forget the joy that both of us derived from her in the spats, skirt and collared tank top.

Please don't forget that the possibility of wearing new, fine, provocative clothing could attract people to the game.

Michael, the point there is... she wanted to.

What if she didn't? What if that didn't fit her personality.

On the other end, what if I wanted to dress like Bobby Jones in three piece and plus fours?

David Stamm

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Not OT
« Reply #62 on: November 07, 2007, 11:47:25 PM »

Quote

Golf in America got rolling as a deeply aristocratic pastime.


Quote

As it did in its country of origin -- Scotland. If not aristocratic, certainly a game for the very well-off -- equivalant in some ways today to polo in America.

I'd challenge that. Big time. It was played on useless public lands. Shared with goatherds and merchantmen.

I think golf became aristrocratic when people started BUYING LAND on which to play it. The minute the course became a real estate venture was the minute aristocracy took over.


Kyle, golf became aristocratic as you say because of the ball. The cost to manufacture them (featheries) was expensive. The best ball makers could only make 3-4 a day and 3 or 4 a round was needed to play. In fact, the balls were more expensive then the clubs that struck them. This made the game very expensive to play. The guttie changed all that. Most of the clubs in the UK played on courses on public land in the early days.  
"The object of golf architecture is to give an intelligent purpose to the striking of a golf ball."- Max Behr

Lloyd_Cole

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Not OT
« Reply #63 on: November 07, 2007, 11:51:51 PM »
...is it any wonder that he is one of the more well-respected and influential architects of the past 15 years?

I think the very fact that Tom Doak allowed himself to be photographed like that in what I'm assuming was a candid shot is a high testament to his artistic integrity.

Kyle,

So Tom's jeans give him integrety? Give me a break. I guess using that logic Tom Simpson must have the least integrity with his cape and his Rolls Royce...

Kyle Harris

Re:Not OT
« Reply #64 on: November 07, 2007, 11:53:00 PM »
David, I had realized that, but still believe that there wasn't as much of a barrier as there was post-America.

The public land thing, to me, means that the game was more accessible and not so aristocratic. Some of the pioneers of the game were from very humble backgrounds, but I do submit that the aristocracy took to the game more so than the proletariat.

Was there an increase in schlub play when the guttie came out?

David Stamm

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Not OT
« Reply #65 on: November 07, 2007, 11:53:05 PM »
...is it any wonder that he is one of the more well-respected and influential architects of the past 15 years?



BECAUSE HE'S WEARING JEANS? I THOUGHT THIS WAS PHOTO FROM A TOUR TOM WAS GIVING ON ONE OF HIS COURSES......

I think the very fact that Tom Doak allowed himself to be photographed like that in what I'm assuming was a candid shot is a high testament to his artistic integrity.


NO OFFENSE, BUT I DO BELIEVE YOU'RE REACHING THERE BUBBA.
"The object of golf architecture is to give an intelligent purpose to the striking of a golf ball."- Max Behr

Phil McDade

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Not OT
« Reply #66 on: November 07, 2007, 11:53:08 PM »

Quote

Golf in America got rolling as a deeply aristocratic pastime.


Quote

As it did in its country of origin -- Scotland. If not aristocratic, certainly a game for the very well-off -- equivalant in some ways today to polo in America.

I'd challenge that. Big time. It was played on useless public lands. Shared with goatherds and merchantmen.

I think golf became aristrocratic when people started BUYING LAND on which to play it. The minute the course became a real estate venture was the minute aristocracy took over.

Kyle:

Read up on some golf history. Golf may have been played on "common land" (and I'd suggest the use of that phrase has a much different meaning in the UK than it does here), but it was played initially -- pre-1850 -- by a very elitist set, largely due to its cost. Equipment -- clubs and most particularly feathery balls -- were quite expensive, and well beyond the means of most Scots. It wasn't until the advent of the guttie, the single-most important invention in the game, that golf became a sport of and for the masses.

Pre-guttie (1852) the UK had fewer than 25 golf clubs. Almost all of those were centered in the wealthiest parts of the country -- largely ports and trading centers. The clubs that survived from that era -- the Honourable Company, Prestwick, Royal Aberdeen, the R & A, Royal Burgess -- are among the most elitist clubs in golf.

Kyle Harris

Re:Not OT
« Reply #67 on: November 07, 2007, 11:54:36 PM »
...is it any wonder that he is one of the more well-respected and influential architects of the past 15 years?

I think the very fact that Tom Doak allowed himself to be photographed like that in what I'm assuming was a candid shot is a high testament to his artistic integrity.

Kyle,

So Tom's jeans give him integrety? Give me a break. I guess using that logic Tom Simpson must have the least integrity with his cape and his Rolls Royce...

Lloyd, I didn't say that - that would be the same logic that I am standing up to here.

I'm saying that Doak didn't give a rats' ass if this group went all Jordan Wall on him because of that picture. The man LOOKS comfortable and happy.

Wow, I feel bad about that.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2007, 11:55:30 PM by Kyle Harris »

David Stamm

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Not OT
« Reply #68 on: November 07, 2007, 11:56:24 PM »


Was there an increase in schlub play when the guttie came out?


Yes, in fact there was. The mere decrease in cost because of the guttie allowed this to happen.
"The object of golf architecture is to give an intelligent purpose to the striking of a golf ball."- Max Behr

Lloyd_Cole

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Not OT
« Reply #69 on: November 07, 2007, 11:58:08 PM »
...is it any wonder that he is one of the more well-respected and influential architects of the past 15 years?

I think the very fact that Tom Doak allowed himself to be photographed like that in what I'm assuming was a candid shot is a high testament to his artistic integrity.

Kyle,

So Tom's jeans give him integrety? Give me a break. I guess using that logic Tom Simpson must have the least integrity with his cape and his Rolls Royce...

Lloyd, I didn't say that - that would be the same logic that I am standing up to here.

I'm saying that Doak didn't give a rats' ass if this group went all Jordan Wall on him because of that picture. The man LOOKS comfortable and happy.

Wow, I feel bad about that.

Kyle,

Then you do equate artistic integrity with not giving a rat's ass??

Kyle Harris

Re:Not OT
« Reply #70 on: November 07, 2007, 11:58:22 PM »

Quote

Golf in America got rolling as a deeply aristocratic pastime.


Quote

As it did in its country of origin -- Scotland. If not aristocratic, certainly a game for the very well-off -- equivalant in some ways today to polo in America.

I'd challenge that. Big time. It was played on useless public lands. Shared with goatherds and merchantmen.

I think golf became aristrocratic when people started BUYING LAND on which to play it. The minute the course became a real estate venture was the minute aristocracy took over.

Kyle:

Read up on some golf history. Golf may have been played on "common land" (and I'd suggest the use of that phrase has a much different meaning in the UK than it does here), but it was played initially -- pre-1850 -- by a very elitist set, largely due to its cost. Equipment -- clubs and most particularly feathery balls -- were quite expensive, and well beyond the means of most Scots. It wasn't until the advent of the guttie, the single-most important invention in the game, that golf became a sport of and for the masses.

Pre-guttie (1852) the UK had fewer than 25 golf clubs. Almost all of those were centered in the wealthiest parts of the country -- largely ports and trading centers. The clubs that survived from that era -- the Honourable Company, Prestwick, Royal Aberdeen, the R & A, Royal Burgess -- are among the most elitist clubs in golf.

The Honourable Company bounced around a bit, didn't they? Didn't they ultimately move to Muirfield?

Were the golf courses upon which these clubs played owned by the clubs? Could others play them as well?

The difference here is that these clubs were created by the men of means because they wanted to play the game, not necessarily control the golf course. Others could play on the course and these men had their standards and the others had theirs.

Yes, that standard existed then, but the standard didn't bar others from playing the game, or the same courses, per se.

Kyle Harris

Re:Not OT
« Reply #71 on: November 07, 2007, 11:59:14 PM »
Not giving a rats' ass about the perception of others, yes.

Kyle Harris

Re:Not OT
« Reply #72 on: November 08, 2007, 12:00:29 AM »
I capped this conversation for me at midnight, I need to be up in 5 hours to go setup a golf course and level off some irrigation heads and drainage bins.

I'm not ignoring anybody, just need to sleep and work.

See you all tomorrow and thanks for humoring me.

Just promise to think about this some more.

Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Not OT
« Reply #73 on: November 08, 2007, 12:01:03 AM »
Kyle, Sweater folders are know as pros. Courses that have a dress code and you show up not in uniform means you must either leave or BUY the uniform.

Play where you're welcome. Dress for your self and forget the uniform.

"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

Kyle Harris

Re:Not OT
« Reply #74 on: November 08, 2007, 12:02:25 AM »
Kyle, Sweater folders are know as pros. Courses that have a dress code and you show up not in uniform means you must either leave or BUY the uniform.

Play where you're welcome. Dress for your self and forget the uniform.



I thought that's where you were going, just didn't want to interpret.

I won't discuss what else I told Doug about service personnel at golf courses until later.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back