Not OT

[Patrick_Mucci]

"All I'm asking, is WHY they exist, and what the possible consequences of such policies could ultimately be."

Kyle

You have been on this site long enough to know that the only answer ever given on this site to the first part of this question (even by intelligent commentators such as Pat Mucci and Bob Huntley is...

"Because."

Rich,

I could explain and expound on the answer well beyond "because", but I choose not to.

I thought that common sense and common courtesy summed up the answer.

If I have to go into great detail, historical perspectives, human nature and behavior it could take days and I have neither the time nor the inclination to do so.

If one asks "why" they probably won't understand or agree with my response, so why waste my time, it's far too precious.[/color]

...and the answer to the second part of this question can be boiled down to..

"Damned if I know, but maybe the sky will fall."

I looked out the window and the only thing falling right now is rain.  However, it's supposed to turn to snow in a few hours. [/color]

[Joe Hancock]

Common courtesy doesn't exist. To make courtesy common, it has to be dictated.

Joe

[Tim Bert]

Tim,

You read nothing of what I posted in my lengthy post on page 6 and it's showing.

Guilty as charged.  I gave up on page 2 or 3 and then joined back in.

The Boy Scouts' values and ethics are under constant scrutiny and evaluation. Discourse and conversation are encouraged and welcome. Changes are made and adapted and Scout Troops are free to determine the level of uniforming suitable for them and their program.

The uniform is not a barrier of entry and advancement is not denied, nor is access, based on a lack of uniform. Furthermore, if a troop determines that uniforming is important, they are encouraged to provide the means for those who cannot uniform themselves through subsidization and uniform exchanges - because teenagers grow out of uniforms.

Golf courses can determine the level of uniforming suitable for them as well.  I don't think anyone can dispute that it is a course by course decision.

So, you'd be okay with the golf course requiring a dress code if they provided the clothes?  That's not consistent with your comments about wanting to play Pine Valley in your PJs (I'm taking artistic liberties now.)

I could go on, but I think you can see how this is nowhere near the stringency of a country club. Don't get me started about the differences between non-profit scout troops, and for profit pro shops.

Again, if your issue is accessibility to the game due to cost, then there are several more pressing barriers of entry to golf than attire.  Go to Goodwill and buy a second-hand pair of pants.

I thought your issue was that we are driving creative forces away from the game due to dress requirements.  How is this any different in the Scouting world if the local troop leader chooses to enfrorce a dress code - whether it is provided free of charge or not?

[Kyle Harris]

Scouting is not a program designed to advance creativity.

Neither is golf, but a common complaint is that new golf courses are banal and bland, and that established classics are commonly dumbed down and denuded of all the truly creative elements that made them special in the first place.

Scouting's means are consistent with their desired ends.

Golf Club's means are not necessarily consistent with those ends.

[Joe Hancock]

Neither is golf, but a common complaint is that new golf courses are banal and bland, and that established classics are commonly dumbed down and denuded of all the truly creative elements that made them special in the first place.

Common complaint? Where?

Joe

[Ryan Farrow]

I like Obama, he is my Senator from Illinois.  I saw the same logo behind him in a speech and think it is a nice design.  I'm impressed if it is his logo and original design for his campaign.

Yes, its a great design with some clever imagery. He is a hell of a speaker too, he was at Arizona State a few weeks ago and the place was packed, I think 6-8 thousand people showed up.

[Kyle Harris]

Neither is golf, but a common complaint is that new golf courses are banal and bland, and that established classics are commonly dumbed down and denuded of all the truly creative elements that made them special in the first place.

Common complaint? Where?

Joe

Well, here. Sorry, the context of common is in terms of the poster on GCA, which is a significant minority of the golfing community.

[George Pazin]

I prefer to look at dress codes as liberating: one less decision I have to make. I make too many as it is, it feels good not to have to make another.

Maybe that's why I like black tie events so much.

[Kyle Harris]

I prefer to look at dress codes as liberating: one less decision I have to make. I make too many as it is, it feels good not to have to make another.

Maybe that's why I like black tie events so much.

Austin Heller practically had to staple a tuxedo on to Howard Roark.

[George Pazin]

I'm no Howard Roark, I'm only me.

[Kyle Harris]

I'm no Howard Roark, I'm only me.

Good boy, you get it. Can't wait to actually join you for some golf some time, and because of you, I now thoroughly enjoy Mexican cuisine.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Common courtesy doesn't exist. To make courtesy common, it has to be dictated.

Joe,

When I'm seated on a packed bus or train, noone dictates that I get up and give my seat to a woman who's standing, it's merely common courtesy imbued in me by my parents.[/color]

[Tim Bert]

The Google search for "boy scout creativity" came back with 741,000 results, most of which on the first couple pages seem to be relevant the Scouts promoting creativity.

Do country clubs require a dress code for their architects while creating the course?  Does Doak really have to show up in a golf shirt and pants to drive the bulldozer around or to shape a bunker?  Was Pete Dye required to wade around in the swamps at what is now Sawgrass in golf attire?

If there is a common complaint about banal and bland golf courses on this site, then I would think that would be directed at the architects and not at the golfers.

You are shaping the argument as it pleases you.  I am as well at the moment, but I'm just doing so in the interest of keeping this on level ground.  As others have pointed out here, this thread isn't going to solve anything, but I enjoy a good debate.

[Joe Hancock]

I'm no Howard Roark, I'm only me.

Good boy, you get it. Can't wait to actually join you for some golf some time, and because of you, I now thoroughly enjoy Mexican cuisine.

One thing about Mexican cuisine, it is thorough.

Joe

[Joe Hancock]

Common courtesy doesn't exist. To make courtesy common, it has to be dictated.

Joe,

When I'm seated on a packed bus or train, noone dictates that I get up and give my seat to a woman who's standing, it's merely common courtesy imbued in me by my parents.[/color]

And I would contend that your level of courtesy may not be common.

Joe

[Kyle Harris]

The Google search for "boy scout creativity" came back with 741,000 results, most of which on the first couple pages seem to be relevant the Scouts promoting creativity.

Do country clubs require a dress code for their architects while creating the course?  Does Doak really have to show up in a golf shirt and pants to drive the bulldozer around or to shape a bunker?  Was Pete Dye required to wade around in the swamps at what is now Sawgrass in golf attire?

If there is a common complaint about banal and bland golf courses on this site, then I would think that would be directed at the architects and not at the golfers.

You are shaping the argument as it pleases you.  I am as well at the moment, but I'm just doing so in the interest of keeping this on level ground.  As others have pointed out here, this thread isn't going to solve anything, but I enjoy a good debate.

No he doesn't, but he has to change the 18th at Beechtree to make it more appealing for the clubhouse...

That attitude has to start somewhere, and it's because nobody tells these people to shove it when it comes to asking others for concessions.

[Rich Goodale]

Pat

Thanks for your reply.  I tenbd to agree with everything Joe H. has said on this thread, plus.....

Like most people of our generation, I had "common" courtesy drilled into me when I was young too, and most of it still sticks.  Some doesn't, such as always rushing forward to open a door for a woman.  I'd still do it for my dear Aunt Rhoda (of she were still alive) but I learned nearly 40 years ago that trying to do the same thing when a one-legged aggrieved feminist tries to hop in front of you requires that it is you who must accept the courtesy.

I was fortunate enough to have been brought up by iconoclastic parents who understood the hypocrisy of those who used "courtesies" as shields from rather than windows into reality.

Speaking of windows, how many of us who believe that dressing "as the Romans do" is a  "common courtesy" can view "Caddyshack" without relizing that, as Swift said:  "Satire is a glass (mirror) in which we see everybody but ourselves?"  Would you rather play a round with Carl Spackler or Judge Smails?

Would common courtesy not ask, nay even demand, that we respect the dress sense of others when inviting them to our clubs?

[Norbert P]

If you decide you want to play at courses with dress codes, then you have to follow their rules.

Seven pages (7!) about apparel, from a sport that gave us Tom Weiskopf, and it's all summed and settled in Dan's remark on page one (1!).

[Kyle Harris]

If you decide you want to play at courses with dress codes, then you have to follow their rules.

Seven pages (7!) about apparel, from a sport that gave us Tom Weiskopf, and it's all summed and settled in Dan's remark on page one (1!).

Slag, swing and a miss on the point.

[TEPaul]

Kyle:

I certainly hope you don't have to worry about the moderators of this website taking this thread off. While it isn't exactly about golf course architecture, so what? It is about something pretty interesting to golf and its culture in the over-all. If the moderators or the contributors to this site can't handle that I think this website will become unnecessarlily restricting---not a good thing.

You said:

"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."



In that case I'm not going to continue to follow your line of thinking because I'm not willing to acknowledge the mutual exclusivity of those three things.

I'm still not that certain why you have a problem with the acceptance of a standard such as a dress code at some clubs or what your problem is with the potential or already occuring circumstances of such a standard.

On the other hand, you seem to give some evidence in the next paragraph of what you think the problems are---eg that the "country club", "our attire" and "playing golf" are three mutually exclusive things.

I would suggest that is not necessarily the case at all, particularly in some clubs. In some clubs the idea is something like the extended family concept and those who belong seem to feel some comfort in that fact.

Perhaps it all goes back to the fact that man is something of a tribal animal---that he feels somewhat safe in the community of those he feels think and act like him and that that idea gives him comfort that he's protected in some way from others who he feels don't think at all as he does.

I think I understand where you're coming from but you may need to consider more carefully that golf, like life, is a great big thing and there really is room in it for a whole lot of diversity.

Only problem is that diversity may never exist in the same place or in all places at the same time.

It's all part of the "Big World" theory, I guess.  

I think you've made your point but you probably need to recognize that not everyone will agree with it.

[Paul Payne]

I'll offer an opinion on the subject.

Just to note, I always dress in my "proper golf attire", but I really am more with Kyle on this. I could care less.

If we did take the brakes off of the golf dress code entirely I could see that a LOT of sport clothing manufacturers will come up with some ingenious, functional, comfortable, and expensive things for us to wear. In the end I think the uiniform would once again define itself and though proper golf attire would once again change by definition, those who don't abide will still be frowned upon.

On the other hand, most guys I see in other foursomes on my weekend round are fat middle aged guys with saggy butts. You are not going to force them out of their pleated khaki pants and into jeans for all the gorse in Scotland. I this case, once again the clothing is functional at a certain level.

[Doug Ralston]

I like Obama, he is my Senator from Illinois.  I saw the same logo behind him in a speech and think it is a nice design.  I'm impressed if it is his logo and original design for his campaign.

Yes, its a great design with some clever imagery. He is a hell of a speaker too, he was at Arizona State a few weeks ago and the place was packed, I think 6-8 thousand people showed up.

  etc

Doug [who thinks we need a political forum for the site]