News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Mark Chaplin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is The R&A Accessible and Accountable?
« Reply #25 on: May 10, 2012, 12:50:55 AM »
We were in Australia in 2000(?) when there was a referendum around keeping the queen as head of state. We knew dozens of Australians and they were almost 100% in favour of a republic but voted 100% in favour of the queen. To a man their reasoning was the unpalatable option of an elected leader with all the trappings (and costs) of power.

Whether the R&A do a good job now I don't really know, however I can fully understand when the individual members of the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St Andrews were personally responsible for any losses of the club they backed away from the risk of litigation.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2012, 12:52:55 AM by Mark Chaplin »
Cave Nil Vino

Chris Kane

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is The R&A Accessible and Accountable?
« Reply #26 on: May 10, 2012, 01:08:58 AM »
We were in Australia in 2000(?) when there was a referendum around keeping the queen as head of state. We knew dozens of Australians and they were almost 100% in favour of a republic but voted 100% in favour of the queen. To a man their reasoning was the unpalatable option of an elected leader with all the trappings (and costs) of power.

At the risk of diverting the thread Mark, the reason the republic wasn't successful is because people wanted an elected head of state (a very dangerous thing in my view), rather than the option presented which had a President appointed by the parliament. The 'No' campaign didn't seek to defend the constitutional monarchy, it focussed on the model - the 'politician's republic'.

Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is The R&A Accessible and Accountable?
« Reply #27 on: May 10, 2012, 03:53:01 AM »
When we talk about the advancement of the equipment ruining the game then I think most people are talking about the professional game. I do not think the average 20 handicapper really has been so effected in a negative way. The R&A are limited as to what thy can do due to litigation through it would be easy and quite cheap to reduce the distance of the ball by 20% by say 2020.

I do think that the tours could do something about the ball earlier and maybe the Masters could introduce a Masters Ball for their tournament thus restoring much of the original challenging of the course in one fell swoop.

Jon

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is The R&A Accessible and Accountable?
« Reply #28 on: May 10, 2012, 07:54:25 AM »
We were in Australia in 2000(?) when there was a referendum around keeping the queen as head of state. We knew dozens of Australians and they were almost 100% in favour of a republic but voted 100% in favour of the queen. To a man their reasoning was the unpalatable option of an elected leader with all the trappings (and costs) of power.

Whether the R&A do a good job now I don't really know, however I can fully understand when the individual members of the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St Andrews were personally responsible for any losses of the club they backed away from the risk of litigation.

Mark

My issue with havign a CEO of an elected organisation in charge is that you end up with constant change for the sake of getting someone elcted or them feeling compelled to make change to keepm their job. Basically the sort of thing you see in politics. To my mind the game has been better off with the R&A's brand of benign "neglect".

Niall

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Is The R&A Accessible and Accountable?
« Reply #29 on: May 10, 2012, 09:09:08 AM »

Interesting point raised by Jon, which had me wondering why we ever allowed courses to be classified as Championship  rather than just define them as standard  golf courses.

My early recognition of golf courses where of 3 spaced Tee sites for Women, Men and Professionals. These appeared on near every course apart from the odd smaller out of the way club courses. They served a purpose of allowing all the opportunity to follow (from different Tees) the footsteps of their heroes, from a local, National or The Open Championship Tournament.

This was a wonderful way of encouraging the new blood and the young to take up the game.
I do not know how many Majors are played on public/private courses in the USA. However, I believe we are lucky here in GB (or correct me if I am wrong) as over the pond Private Clubs means private,
so access to certain courses are totally limited.

I would like to see the title ‘Championship’ removed from the status of courses in GB as I feel that projects the wrong image of the course and game. I accept that some courses offer better public spaces and facilities than others (TOC vs. Prestwick) but to this golfer the courses should be selected on the merit of the playing area as that is where the game is played and the test and challenge should surface. WE must look to the arena and not the spectator gallery, certain courses will have limited spectator access others will not, but still I advocate the course is paramount part of any course selection process.

Nevertheless this will not happen, money rules the game not the golf anymore. Golf is just the side show. Decisions have been made for the best part of 100 years that has steered us to the current state of affairs. Course like Prestwick – the Home of The Open – no longer considered thanks to the financial pressure and not necessary the quality of the potential match, golf or the course. There are other links courses that also offer the modern elite golfer a challenge which are not on the selection schedule.

For this golfer, it’s the quality of the course that is important. The golfers are just there to accept the challenge in the hope of being crowned Champion with all the rewards associated with being the victor.

If we are accepting technology is now well in place within the game why can’t we accept that certain courses will only allow a limited numbers to make up the spectators gallery with the game being televised using the latest technology be it through home TV’s Computers or phones. Again it’s the quality of the course that should motivate the selection. If for no other reason than to offer the public the best that golf can offer.

The point I feel I am struggling to make is that golf courses are selected more for the money than for the real opportunity to see great players being pushed. This is the result of accumulation of years of ignoring the game in preference for financial rewards. Not understanding the full consequences of one’s decision.  Not grasping the nettle after examining the current and future implications of one’s decisions.

While I understand the financial pressures, it’s after all a game and that should be considered first and foremost. Perhaps seeing lesser revenue is the way to break the restrictive practices being used to squeeze the game of its sporting spirit.

Alas why is the R&A not pondering these issues, making their concerns for the health and wellbeing of the sport public, even just to test the waters?
Could it be they are no longer the Disciples of the Game of Golf and are seeking to change their name by deed poll to Judas Iscariot?

There are other issues and questions, asking why were they allowed; did no one consider the future implications of these decision and what about protecting the core game of golf that ignited the world’s interest in the first place. Today that is really only seen if one looks to the real inheritor of the Royal & Ancient Game of Golf, that being the Hickory game, as all else has been handed over to the equipment manufacturers to do with what they want.

Why was the cart allowed?
Why has technology not been used to improve consistency instead of reducing distance?
Why are distance aids allowed when the history of the game shows is a relative new concept introduced around the time of the cart?
Why is the ball issue still not resolves after a century plus of discussion?
All the above have an effect upon the game and GCA, they reflect upon our game, our enjoyment, our pocket. They allow spinoffs of the original game yet still governed by the same rules, can this be seen as right let alone fair.
Nearly every issue today has its origins, its botched decisions from the past, we do not seem to learn but certainly certain pockets or should I say coffers are always open to the point one has to wonder if the decision was taken with golf in mind or just making money to hell with the game of golf. 

Even if all is totally innocent the projected mess and dithering conveys poorly upon the Royal and Ancient Game of Golf.

Hopefully I have given you some bones to chew upon. Even if you are not aware of the function of the R&A you may have an opinion on the other items and issues I mentioned.

This is no rant but serious concern from one who care for the game, who has it in his blood and who ultimately wants to see the game flourish but in its true form, that form that I mentioned above
the ‘game of golf that ignited the world’s interest in the first place’.

Melvyn

PS Niall  If you feel word neglect describes their action on the course, wonder what word you would use for the shambles of the off course actions. Neglect seems just too generous a word to use, something far, far stronger I feel is required. In fact over sometime one or two of their own Members have resigned in horror and disbelief.

David_Tepper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is The R&A Accessible and Accountable?
« Reply #30 on: May 10, 2012, 01:33:40 PM »
"There are other links courses that also offer the modern elite golfer a challenge which are not on the selection schedule."

And what might those "other links courses" be, aside from Prestwick? Please name 3 or 4. 

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Is The R&A Accessible and Accountable?
« Reply #31 on: May 10, 2012, 01:57:42 PM »

David

Even you could name 4 courses that could act as Host for The Open and that's just in Scotland alone.

David_Tepper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is The R&A Accessible and Accountable?
« Reply #32 on: May 10, 2012, 02:02:14 PM »
But I asked you first! ;)

It is a simple question. Why are you so afraid to answer it?

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Is The R&A Accessible and Accountable?
« Reply #33 on: May 10, 2012, 02:41:13 PM »
David

No certainly not, but then why should I after the names you have called me in the past. David if you had shown some consideration then I would return the compliment. But just to show willing I will suggest 4 courses all of which had seen the work of the Morris'.

There you have it, I leave you to fill in the names of the courses which number in total well over 70 in Scotland alone.

Have a nice day Mr Tepper   

Mark Chaplin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is The R&A Accessible and Accountable?
« Reply #34 on: May 10, 2012, 06:05:00 PM »
Championship course is a name banded around by owners and members to describe their course, it means jack.

Melvyn your obsession with carts and the R&A is a strange one, how many cart only courses are there in the UK? I can think of 1, carts is not a GB&I issue. The people at St Andrews do not run the game over the pond where carts maybe an issue.
Cave Nil Vino

David_Tepper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is The R&A Accessible and Accountable?
« Reply #35 on: May 10, 2012, 06:38:22 PM »
"No certainly not, but then why should I after the names you have called me in the past."

Mr. Spode -

In that case, why don't you list the 3 worst names I have called you? ;) But don't forget that "prick" and "racist neanderthal" are just two of the names you have called me. :D

DT
  
« Last Edit: May 10, 2012, 06:53:34 PM by David_Tepper »

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Is The R&A Accessible and Accountable?
« Reply #36 on: May 10, 2012, 07:00:44 PM »

David

At least my names were appropriate.

I am no leader of any Fascist group, in fact family members died fighting against them, so it’s rather unpleasant being associated even with a fictional character.  I tried to pour oil on trouble waters but you wanted none of it and continues with your name calling.


Tiger_Bernhardt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is The R&A Accessible and Accountable?
« Reply #37 on: May 10, 2012, 07:10:35 PM »
Mr M neither of the names you called David are correct or appropriate. I do not find your approach on here to be in the spirit of one that promotes healthy discussion.

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Is The R&A Accessible and Accountable?
« Reply #38 on: May 10, 2012, 08:43:45 PM »
Sorry to hear that but as usual you have ignored what's been written. I tried to make peace with David
sometime ago but he was not interested.  

I find it funny how you defend his comments against me, but of course no bias in your approach, clearly you feel his comments against me are just and fair.

Perhaps you could do all of us a courtesy of reading all the comments before you decide to apportion blame. Surely armed with all the facts would be the correct approach before injecting your comment.

You said “I do not find your approach on here to be in the spirit of one that promotes healthy
discussion”.


First of all have you read my topic and my post on this thread?
Why have you not said the same to the man that’s calling another a Fascist i.e. Mr Spode?
And what has your comment to do with the subject matter in hand?


Mark

Niall asked me to name certain issues so I did, it’s not an obsession.  Play with toys, play with carts
use aids but under different rules to walkers and traditional golfers. I would like to see a study re
carting vs. walking in energy saved and how that equates to various things associated with golf. If you
are old or need a cart then use one but again let’s get things clear, the rules sorted to reflect certain
aids instead of pretending to the world that riding, distance aids and advanced ball/club technology
give the users no help or advantage over a player not using  them. Is that not a fair request?
« Last Edit: May 11, 2012, 07:24:00 AM by Melvyn Hunter Morrow »

Mark Chaplin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is The R&A Accessible and Accountable?
« Reply #39 on: May 11, 2012, 06:31:41 PM »
I agree re carts but it's not a problem over here.

I don't like lasers as they slow play down, I use a Garmin watch which tells me the number of yards to the front, middle and back of the green in half a second. It doesn't tell me wind speed or direction, firmness of the ground, etc.
Cave Nil Vino

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Is The R&A Accessible and Accountable?
« Reply #40 on: May 11, 2012, 06:52:20 PM »

Mark

The real point as far as I am concerned is that golfers just do not need all this new equipment to play a good enjoyable game. Also I find that it means more to my enjoyment using the basics of equipment including legs, eyes and arms. Many say they play golf for the game then jump on a cart use aids from distance to high tech equipment to help their game and worst still (in my eyes) to reduce their score. The game is -for me- so much better in its traditional form unaided by outside help. But yes we first need consistency in the game and reliability of the equipment.

Rules need to reflect the game, if that means cart ball golf, walking golf etc, etc. then so be it but we need the right rules for the right game. But this live and let live attitude just confuses the whole issue and IMHO this mess should never have been allowed. In life we the golfers have to be responsible for our decisions and actions, seems only fair that the Governing Bodies do the same, but they don't or won't

Melvyn

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is The R&A Accessible and Accountable?
« Reply #41 on: May 12, 2012, 10:42:46 AM »
"PS Niall  If you feel word neglect describes their action on the course, wonder what word you would use for the shambles of the off course actions. Neglect seems just too generous a word to use, something far, far stronger I feel is required. In fact over sometime one or two of their own Members have resigned in horror and disbelief."

Melvyn

My use of the phrase benign "neglect" was intended to refer to the way the R&A hasn't ruined the game by over managing and bringing in unwanted innovations. When they do take action they do so in a considered way. I will say it again, I would rather have that style of management rather than some whizz kid or over paid executive trying to prove themselves. And at the end of the day only an idiot would think that these guys on R&A committees aren't working for the good of the game.

Regarding your reference to off course actions, can you enlighten me to what you're referring to ?


Niall

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Is The R&A Accessible and Accountable?
« Reply #42 on: May 12, 2012, 11:04:37 AM »

Niall

Getting personal now? Perhaps I have had a little more insight into their performances over the years hence my comments both on and certainly off the golf course.

“And at the end of the day only an idiot would think that these guys on R&A committees aren't working for the good of the game.”

Niall you mean the same way another guy from Fife a certain Gordon Brown was working for the good of the UK. I do not doubt they are working for the good of the game, but which game making money because I do question it based upon the last 100 years of their duty of care towards the game.  I will not compare anyone to an idiot, but just put it down to lack of clear information.

They have IMHO done a poor job to the point that I would certainly like to see them reformed and answerable for their decisions. Perhaps, just perhaps that will make them think through the real consequences of their decision to the game.

Melvyn (but no idiot just a concerned golfer)   

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is The R&A Accessible and Accountable?
« Reply #43 on: May 14, 2012, 01:59:34 PM »
Melvyn

I think you and I are coming to the same point but from different angles. I don't see how the guys on Committee are making a decision that they don't believe is in the games best interest. After all whats in it for them ? Yes, its an honour and privilege to be on the Committee (at least I think it is !) but what do they get out of it other than a belief that they are doing the right thing. You then compare that to an elected representative who then start second guess what they think is going to be the popular vote rather than doing what they think right. Think not ? Well you provided the example, Gordon Brown who's party was voted in by the great unwashed British public.

Niall 

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Is The R&A Accessible and Accountable?
« Reply #44 on: May 14, 2012, 03:24:50 PM »

Niall

Elected or not I am comparing Brown to the Members of the R&A – both think they may be doing good but in reality they have F@*k”d Up, made a mess, one of the country the other the game of golf.

Both refuse to consider the real issues facing the golfers and or the Country. I know the R&A have never considered the long term implications of their decisions, looking always at the short term. They have bumbled along unchallenged so far apart from the odd internal contest that has been kept within, noticed only by the odd departure from time to time.

 Melvyn 

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is The R&A Accessible and Accountable?
« Reply #45 on: May 15, 2012, 01:18:39 PM »
Melvyn

With reference to your last paragraph, if thats true then you know more than me. To me they have never been the knid of group to make knee jerk decisions which are usually expedient for the short term, which is contrary to what you suggest.

Niall

Bob_Huntley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is The R&A Accessible and Accountable?
« Reply #46 on: May 15, 2012, 11:47:39 PM »

Niall

Elected or not I am comparing Brown to the Members of the R&A – both think they may be doing good but in reality they have F@*k”d Up, made a mess, one of the country the other the game of golf.

Both refuse to consider the real issues facing the golfers and or the Country. I know the R&A have never considered the long term implications of their decisions, looking always at the short term. They have bumbled along unchallenged so far apart from the odd internal contest that has been kept within, noticed only by the odd departure from time to time.

 Melvyn 


Melvyn Morrow

Re: Is The R&A Accessible and Accountable?
« Reply #47 on: May 16, 2012, 06:59:16 AM »

Niall

Perhaps for the reason of two uncles as Members of the R&A, one a Knight of the Realm (and also direct bloodline to Old Tom) not to mention a few family friends and honourable locals who also care about the game and have resigned after making their feeling known but to no avail.

Melvyn


Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back