News:

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


Phil McDade

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Not OT
« Reply #75 on: November 08, 2007, 12:12:09 AM »

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.

The Honourable Company originally played over the common land of Leith, roughly five holes or so, and now a city park in Edinburgh. The club then moved to the Old Musselburgh links, site of some of the first Opens, then desirerous of their own course to control, moved to the land now known as Muirfield.

It is helpful, I think, to distinguish between clubs as we may know them here in the States, and clubs in Scotland. Clubs here are most commonly associated with control over a course, with the course being the primary reason for the existence of the club. In Scotland, many clubs in their origin shared golf courses, or had rights to play on certain courses.

I'd argue in Scotland, during the game's beginnings, where the game was played was less important to this discussion than who played it. The game itself was fairly rudimentary, and courses were barely much more than meadows and seaside scruffy land (links) with some holes. But clubs were very well-organized and elitist -- it was not a game for the common person, pre-guttie.

Perhaps tomorrow we can discuss the famed fishermen golfers of Inverallochy; it may fit your thesis.


Tony_Muldoon

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Not OT
« Reply #76 on: November 08, 2007, 04:32:43 AM »
Phil have you read Hamilton’s “Golf: Scotland’s Game”?   In it he makes the case that the expensive golf you are talking about was called the Long Game, with fine wooden clubs and hand made balls, but there was also the Short Game.  This was played with cheaper cork balls or stones and cruder sticks.  The target was not usually a hole but something like a church door and it was played by those who couldn’t afford to join a club and all that went with it.

When Shivas get’s back from his enforced rest he’ll run a “Top Ten Subjects for creating Threads on GCA”.  This is about no 6.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2007, 04:33:20 AM by Tony_Muldoon »
Let's make GCA grate again!

Rich Goodale

Re:Not OT
« Reply #77 on: November 08, 2007, 05:16:46 AM »
Every time I see a Perry Golf bus show up in Scotland, I can't help but hum Sondheim's great song, "Send in the Clones."  I also feel the same way when visiting the posher of the Scottish clubs and feel a bit out of place if I am not wearing tweed and carrying a walking stick.

A club is a club is a club, and it hasn't changed much since Gertrude Stein first made this observation.  Just as she and Alice Toklas dressed for androgyny, most club members dress so that they will look and feel like all the other members.  That, in many ways, is what "clubs" are for--to show to the world and yourself that you belong; to something.

My take on this is the same as Dan King's--if you want to play at a club where there is a dress code, conform.  If not conforming is more important to you than not playing, don't play there.

One of the reasons I like my favourite club (mfc) is that it doesn't really care what you wear as long as you follow the "Etiquette" section of the Rules of Golf.  As far as I can see, there is nothing in that section referring to how you should or shouldn't dress.  At mfc I've worn jeans and shorts and no socks and no shoes and tee shirts and torns sweaters and fancy dress and even been cuttered and bucked (not all in the same round, I must say).  The only time I saw anybody from mfc reprimanded for clothing offenses was when they played buck naked at 4am and were caught by the butcher's wife as she walked her dog across the first fairway.

John Kavanaugh

Re:Not OT
« Reply #78 on: November 08, 2007, 05:21:45 AM »
I no longer own a pair of jeans because I dress for golf everyday.  A couple of years ago I bought a set of FootJoy teaching shoes thinking that I could wear shoes for both life and play on a continuous basis eliminating the tenuous need to change shoes during the day.  My experiment failed when I slipped on some wet grass.  The teaching shoe is more of a symbol of a profession than a golf instrument.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2007, 05:27:14 AM by John Kavanaugh »

Rich Goodale

Re:Not OT
« Reply #79 on: November 08, 2007, 05:56:44 AM »
I no longer own a pair of jeans

Shame on you, John.  Little children are starving in Vietnam because their big sisters have been out of a job ever since Hugo Boss's "Kavanaugh" line was discontinued.

TEPaul

Re:Not OT
« Reply #80 on: November 08, 2007, 07:34:54 AM »
"Why do I need to follow dress codes to play golf?"

Kyle:

Probably for the very same reasons you need to follow dress codes attached to anything else in life.

Do you want to discuss and debate that too?  ;)

If you do we should probably begin to discuss some of the ramifications that may essentially fall under a broad concept known as "Privacy" (or the rights of freedom of association) and all that can entail, including its legal ramifications.  
« Last Edit: November 08, 2007, 07:36:14 AM by TEPaul »

Bill Brightly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Not OT
« Reply #81 on: November 08, 2007, 08:49:31 AM »
Kyle,

"It's not time to make a change, just relax, take it easy,
You're still young that's your fault, there's so much you have to know."

Cat Stevens

PThomas

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Not OT
« Reply #82 on: November 08, 2007, 08:54:57 AM »
well, Kyle, you had me interested here for awhile, but I stopped reading this thread halfway through

I think someone already posted: you don't like dress codes, don't go to places that require one

crime, wars, poverty...lots of other things that deserve our attention A LOT MORE than this issue
199 played, only Augusta National left to play!

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Not OT
« Reply #83 on: November 08, 2007, 08:54:57 AM »
Kyle,

Do you think creativity in GCA is lacking because fewer creative minds enter the field because these creative minds stay away from golf because it has a dress code?

If so, read more closely some of what the architects on here say...they are trying to create a product they can sell...it just looks like art to some people.

John Kavanaugh

Re:Not OT
« Reply #84 on: November 08, 2007, 09:00:54 AM »


crime, wars, poverty...lots of other things that deserve our attention A LOT MORE than this issue


I really wish the people on this site that complain about crime, war and poverty and the such would shut up and do something about them.  I once told a Priest that I was bothered that I spent time building roads when I should be out curing the worlds ills...He told me the world needs roads and to keep up the good work.  The world needs considerate golfers too.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2007, 09:08:22 AM by John Kavanaugh »

PThomas

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Not OT
« Reply #85 on: November 08, 2007, 09:10:14 AM »


crime, wars, poverty...lots of other things that deserve our attention A LOT MORE than this issue


I really wish the people on this site that complain about crime, war and poverty and the such would shut up and do something about them.  I once told a Priest that I was bothered that I spent time building roads when I should be out curing the worlds ills...He told me the world needs roads and to keep up the good work.  The world needs considerate golfers too.

and how do you know that I am NOT trying to do something about them?

you should think more before you type sometimes
199 played, only Augusta National left to play!

Mike Benham

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Not OT
« Reply #86 on: November 08, 2007, 09:13:52 AM »
Kyle -

Are you OK with government mandated dress codes?


"... and I liked the guy ..."

John Kavanaugh

Re:Not OT
« Reply #87 on: November 08, 2007, 09:15:49 AM »


crime, wars, poverty...lots of other things that deserve our attention A LOT MORE than this issue


I really wish the people on this site that complain about crime, war and poverty and the such would shut up and do something about them.  I once told a Priest that I was bothered that I spent time building roads when I should be out curing the worlds ills...He told me the world needs roads and to keep up the good work.  The world needs considerate golfers too.

and how do you know that I am NOT trying to do something about them?

you should think more before you type sometimes

Paul,

I have seen your golfing schedule for the last few years.  I will give you credit for attempting to protect the environment but when it comes to poverty and crime I can assure you that your time could be better spent than by golfing the globe and talking about it on the internet.  

PThomas

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Not OT
« Reply #88 on: November 08, 2007, 09:19:27 AM »


crime, wars, poverty...lots of other things that deserve our attention A LOT MORE than this issue


I really wish the people on this site that complain about crime, war and poverty and the such would shut up and do something about them.  I once told a Priest that I was bothered that I spent time building roads when I should be out curing the worlds ills...He told me the world needs roads and to keep up the good work.  The world needs considerate golfers too.

and how do you know that I am NOT trying to do something about them?

you should think more before you type sometimes

Paul,

I have seen your golfing schedule for the last few years.  I will give you credit for attempting to protect the environment but when it comes to poverty and crime I can assure you that your time could be better spent than by golfing the globe and talking about it on the internet.  

my last post wasting my time on this idiocacy: look in the mirror first before telling others what they should do, esp with all the posts you make here

and these kinds of discussions do make me spend less time here
199 played, only Augusta National left to play!

wsmorrison

Re:Not OT
« Reply #89 on: November 08, 2007, 09:20:02 AM »
Kyle Harris (sorry Crystals):

He's a rebel and he'll never ever be - any good
He's a rebel 'cos he never ever does - what he should
And just because he doesn't do what - everybody else does
That's the reason why I can't invite him to my club


Kyle, when you were an Eagle Scout.  Did you got to all your meetings in dungarees and t-shirts?  Of course not, you often wore a uniform much more formal than the "uniform" for golf.  Why is that?  Do you think students in private schools should be able to wear what they want as well or that their uniforms are a bad idea?

Golf allows a wide range of fashions, including Mike Malone's 30 year old polyester pants, white patent leather belt and big pointed collar Munsingwear shirt with pocket (he actually uses a pocket protector).  It is a rather loosely defined uniform.  When you go to a private club as a guest, you have a choice to abide by their rules or not accept the invitation.  I guess we'll know the extent of your conviction by your actions.

Your challenge to golf convention, besides being in contrast with other aspects of your life, is weak and rather unimportant.  Give it up, man.

John Kavanaugh

Re:Not OT
« Reply #90 on: November 08, 2007, 09:20:58 AM »
Paul,

You are not the first to claim that building a more considerate golfing populus is a frivolous activity given the problems the world faces.  I would claim that if we are going to create a more civil society we must start from the top down.  If God had sent a true King as his son instead of some poverty stricken self appointed blow hard we would be in better shape today.  I can make the argument that inconsiderate golfers are to blame for many layoffs and increases in crime.  The CEO in a bad mood is more likely to make cuts in his workforce and then go home and beat his wife than the happy one.  Karma flows downhill.

Mike Hendren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Not OT
« Reply #91 on: November 08, 2007, 09:21:43 AM »
Barney,

You gotta try the Blue Diamond Gusset Jeans.  They are made in Middle Tennessee.



Mike
Two Corinthians walk into a bar ....

John Kavanaugh

Re:Not OT
« Reply #92 on: November 08, 2007, 09:23:23 AM »
Barney,

You gotta try the Blue Diamond Gusset Jeans.  They are made in Middle Tennessee.



Mike

Do I have to tape my nuts to my ass to wear them?

Cory Lewis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Not OT
« Reply #93 on: November 08, 2007, 09:31:44 AM »
Why do I need to follow dress codes to play golf?

To show respect to your host and the club.
Instagram: @2000golfcourses
http://2000golfcourses.blogspot.com

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Not OT
« Reply #94 on: November 08, 2007, 10:37:16 AM »
Kyle,
To follow up on what Cory just posted: a dress code is also there to let you know that it's not about you. That holds true no matter where you find such a code, as Mike Cirba pointed out earlier.

"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

Phil McDade

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Not OT
« Reply #95 on: November 08, 2007, 10:53:39 AM »
I'll try to help out this thread a bit by getting back to Kyle's argument, which I think is this:

"Golf, in part because of its conformist nature exhibited by things like dress codes, inhibits people from joining the game, and perhaps even non-conformists who would make the game better and more enjoyable, including potential course designers."

I think that's a reach.

I think what inhibits more people from joining golf is what I might call a sort of recreational value judgement -- it's a fairly expensive endeavor that takes a long time to do. At its cheapest (for sake of argument, let's call it $25 for 18 holes), it's roughly three times the cost of a movie and takes twice as long. Oh sure, there are ancilliary benefits -- hanging with your buddies, getting in some valuable exercise (if you walk), being one with nature -- but one can do those in ways cheaper and more conveniently than playing 18 holes of golf. It's also something that can potentially be (Shivas' Kingdom-esque don't-care-about-scores aside) a frustrating endeavor, in that most people have to do it regularly in order to maintain a certain proficiency at it. That's unlike, say, bicycle riding, where I can go a year without riding a bike, and still do it ably and enjoyably after a year's time. I can't say the same about my golf game. Thus it tends to weed out quickly the occasional dabbler, who reasonably concludes after shanking a bunch of shots -- "I'm no good at this" -- and goes off to find something else to do that's more enjoyable and a better value for his time and money.








Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Not OT
« Reply #96 on: November 08, 2007, 10:59:30 AM »
Kyle,

I'm partially on your side, and partially not.  Let me explain.

First things first... first impressions are exactly that.  There isn't much you can do about them, because its thier impression not yours and you can't force them to not have one.  Whether you view this as shallow, lame, or whatever thats up to you.  But if you don't care what other people think about you, then it shouldn't matter right?

Now as to dress codes on the course.  As has been alluded to, it really is an ownership issue at play here.  They own the course, you do not...simple as that.  If the owner/manager wants a dress code then its thier right.  This is regardless of whatever reason they have in thier mind for implementing it.  And this is where I'm with you...I think all the notions of gentlemanness, tradition, blah blah blah is mostly just a bunch of hooey and people probably do it cause "well we've always done it this way son".  

BUT!!! They can think whatever they want to justify imposing a dress code on you.

In the end, if you want to change this, then you need to go Warren Buffet on us, start scooping up golf courses, and implementing your own "non" dress codes.  Until then its really a futile act on your part to get your panties in a wad over this.  You don't like it?  Understood.  What can you do about it outside of buying the course?  I suppose you could picket the course if you really feel strongly enough about it.

« Last Edit: November 08, 2007, 11:12:06 AM by Kalen Braley »

Cliff Hamm

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Not OT
« Reply #97 on: November 08, 2007, 11:05:51 AM »
There are also courses that will not allow anyone with tatoos to play.  

John Kavanaugh

Re:Not OT
« Reply #98 on: November 08, 2007, 11:20:59 AM »
There are also courses that will not allow anyone with tatoos to play.  

At the very least I like to see all employees cover tatoos.

Gary Slatter

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Not OT
« Reply #99 on: November 08, 2007, 11:46:43 AM »
Dress codes in golf protect your experience, and the golf course.  

If it looks like a duck, it might be a duck.  If it looks like a golfer, it might be a golfer.
 
That's why we have tennis, for people who can't look like a golfer, or doesn't want to look like a golfer.

Note that the original golfers wore jackets, some had to be red so people knew they were golfing (golfers). The guys with their shirts untucked were probably digging clams. ;)
Gary Slatter
gary.slatter@raffles.com

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back