Women's courses (Women's clubs)

[Sean_A]

While I agree that courses and tees shouldn't be labeled "men" or "women", but this has nothing to do with equality.  Its just common sense.  Archies and developers should be looking for ways to market shorter courses because in many cases they will be cheaper to build, cheaper to maintain, cheaper to play and be more golfer friendly.  So far as men's or women's clubs are concerned, that is a totally different issue.  That has to do with one's right to socialize with who we please.  If that means a guy wants to belong to an all-male club I don't see how anyone other than family can harp on about it.   

Ciao

[TEPaul]

"Signed: the mystery poster.   "


Jim Kennedy:

That's sort of like the guy who runs into the clubhouse and claims he didn't do it before anyone accuses him of anytihng and that really is funny.

I'm all for humor on here most of the time but not when someone such as yourself constantly tries to claim it after the fact as an excuse for your petty criticisms.

Or maybe you should just reanalyze your joke inventory----labeling the contributors on this thread as twenty first century neantherthals probably didn't register on the joke-meter. 

[TEPaul]

"Why in the world would you have to figure out what a "male and female golfer is?"  Why can't there be courses and tee for different skill levels and driving distances.  Why would you have to label courses or tee "for women"?"


Anthony Fowler:

On the other hand, perhaps a interesting architectural model for the future would be for architects to figure out ways where everyone plays golf courses from the very same tee markers. After all that is the way golf once was and it seemed to work out just fine somehow. 

This is where architecture may take a page out of the old Rules of Golf that set teeing in a very limiited area for everyone including women. As far as I know there never has been any Rule or Rules in Golf exclusively for women.

[Joe Bausch]

On the other hand, perhaps a interesting architectural model for the future would be for architects to figure out ways where everyone plays golf courses from the very same tee markers. After all that is the way golf once was and it seemed to work out just fine somehow. 

It would be easier, correct, to have one set of tee markers for everyone if match play was the exclusive format?

[TEPaul]

"It would be easier, correct, to have one set of tee markers for everyone if match play was the exclusive format?"


Why not stroke play too? Is there some reason I'm not aware of that women could not walk or ride 7,000+ yard golf courses of the future? Next time I take a long walk with my wife I'll ask her if she thinks women are capable of walking more than about 6,000 yards at a time. If I asked my sister if she thinks she could walk 7,000 yards I have no doubt she will ask me to run it with her to see who gets there first. 
 
 

[Joe Bausch]

"It would be easier, correct, to have one set of tee markers for everyone if match play was the exclusive format?"

Why not stroke play too? Is there some reason I'm not aware of that women could not walk or ride 7,000+ yard golf courses of the future?

I think most golfers would not mind so much playing tees at a distance much longer than they usually play if match play was the dominant format.  They'd just say "oh, I lost 2 and 1".  Which sounds much better than "I shot 105".   

[Gary Slatter]

Earlier in this thread Jeff Mingay mentioned THE LADIES CLUB in Thornhill, north of Toronto.
Stanley Thompson's 1925 design has been and is still perfect for their very active female membership. 
Every level of femaile golfer can enjoy the course and they have various routings for the senior player. 
AND when my wife was a member I loved playing the course, and I recall a waiting list of men hoping to get a seasonal ticket.

It is a real golf course, not just a course for "women".

[TEPaul]

"I think most golfers would not mind so much playing tees at a distance much longer than they usually play if match play was the dominant format.  They'd just say "oh, I lost 2 and 1".  Which sounds much better than "I shot 105".    "


I have no doubt of that but why always look at things from the negative side?

On the other hand, it is certainly true that no one could say some ARBITRARY "physical disadvantage" handicapping is being applied and that may be a most interesting thing to explore. It is certainly more honest in a reality sense, physical and otherwise!  

[Joe Bausch]

I have no doubt of that but why always look at things from the negative side?

I could have said the following, which is the equivalent:

I think most golfers would not mind so much playing tees at a distance much longer than they usually play if match play was the dominant format.  They'd just say "oh, I won 2 and 1".  Which sounds much better than "I shot 105".

Meaning:  I don't think people would mind so much the actual number of strokes they take in a round if they didn't have to so openly reveal it.

[TEPaul]

"I could have said the following, which is the equivalent:"


Yes, you certainly could have said that particular "followiing" and it looks like in fact you did say it.

But that's merely still looking at it from the negative side except you simply inserted a recommendation to be sneaky about it via the fine art of "admission omission."  


Look Joseph, if you want to get out of the chemistry teaching business and if you want me to run you for Congress just tell me straight and I will do it.

[Jim_Kennedy]

TEPaul,
I see that I'll have to use more smileys, for people like yourself. 

That '02 thread had some interesting discussion, but underlying much of it were charges of reverse discrimination, sexism, rants against Title 9, etc., all because a woman, heaven forbid, was going to play in a PGA Tour event, and a man couldn't do the same on the LPGA Tour.

You can call it what you like. 

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
I see that I'll have to use more smileys, for people like yourself."


My advice to you would be not to bother to do that. I very much doubt even the most toothy grin "smiiley" would make some of the things you say on here humorous in anyone's opinion, either before or after the fact. But if you still want to use smileys then by all means go for it----after all an excuse is an excuse, don't you know?  


As for that '02 thread on Whaley and GHO I didn't see much of any sexism or discrimination at all but I only read about the first 3-4 pages yesterday. I'll be glad to take a look at the rest though. What I did see is a lot of confusion as to how technically Whaley got into the GHO and what tees she played from in that tournament. I also saw a lot of discussion about what really does constitute "equity" under the Rules of Golf in a competitive tournament context and that includes just as much women in men's events as it would men in women's events. To me there is nothinng discriminatory or sexist about any of that-----it is in fact, in my opinion, perhaps the greatest form of "equity" between sexes imaginable to have everyone no matter who they are play from the same tee markers at all times, including the actual event, qualifiers or even some special event from which some sponsor's exemption is selected. But I don't really care what the Ct PGA or whoever they were did or how went about it. As far as I'm concerned they could select a monkey and give him a sponsor's exemption into the GHO. I'd just perfer to seem them do it from beginning to end by conforming to the Rules of Golf to play all competitive tournaments from the same tees for all competitors whomever they are. What exacty is the problem with that and where is the sexism or discrimination in that?

[Jim_Kennedy]

TEP,
I make no excuses for what I say, and you can take from it what you will or distort it into something that suits you. We both know why you stoop to doing it.
 
If you want to continue down the path that led to your recent departure from this site then so be it.

[TEPaul]

Of course you make excuses for what you say and a lame attempt to claim humor is the way you generally do it. The only other possible alternative I could imagine is you just don't have much of a SENSE of what humor is and isn't. I guess that is MORE than possible.

[Jim_Kennedy]

TEP,
Since you came back we've had a couple of instances of friendly posting.  If you cannot keep it that way then I suggest that you do not respond to what I write as it will only lead you to the same place that caused your recent absence from this site.