No more Opens at Muirfield

[MClutterbuck]

What is the over/under on how many of the 64% leave over this? THAT would be putting their money where their mouth is.

If they leave, the 36% gets larger!!!! Would be dumb to do so and activists/politicians would be dumb to target all members.

[JReese]

Mark


I assume what underpins your comment on architecture is the belief that having the Open will lead the powers that be to butcher the course to make it a better test. Surely if there is one course that is as great as it is because of the Open it is Muirfield, no ?


Niall

Is this more related to course upkeep and conditioning?  Historically, have there been changes to the course in preparation of hosting the Open?  According to the Muirfield website: Apart from Tom Simpson's re-modelling of the 13th hole in 1935, the only notable changes since then have been the provision of new tees to combat improvements in equipment.   Significantly and importantly Colt's challenge has been preserved

[Niall C]

James


I'm not an expert on more recent history of Muirfield but back when the course was first designed and laid out in 1895, Andrew Kirkaldy I think it was who made the remark that the course was nothing more than an "auld water meddie" following the first Open that was played there. That lead to fairly swift changes and improvements that continued off and on right up to Simpson in 1936. I'd contend that the prime reason for the changes were to keep it in the front rank of championship courses.


Niall

[Mark Pearce]

What is the over/under on how many of the 64% leave over this? THAT would be putting their money where their mouth is.

0

[Mark Pearce]

Mark


I assume what underpins your comment on architecture is the belief that having the Open will lead the powers that be to butcher the course to make it a better test. Surely if there is one course that is as great as it is because of the Open it is Muirfield, no ?


Niall

Is this more related to course upkeep and conditioning?  Historically, have there been changes to the course in preparation of hosting the Open?  According to the Muirfield website: Apart from Tom Simpson's re-modelling of the 13th hole in 1935, the only notable changes since then have been the provision of new tees to combat improvements in equipment.   Significantly and importantly Colt's challenge has been preserved

No.  Several bunkers were moved nearer to greens (and to each other) to make approaches more challenging in advance of the most recent Open.  The 9th hole has been significantly lengthened.  I think there are other changes but can't recall them now.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Mark


I assume what underpins your comment on architecture is the belief that having the Open will lead the powers that be to butcher the course to make it a better test. Surely if there is one course that is as great as it is because of the Open it is Muirfield, no ?


Niall

Is this more related to course upkeep and conditioning?  Historically, have there been changes to the course in preparation of hosting the Open?  According to the Muirfield website: Apart from Tom Simpson's re-modelling of the 13th hole in 1935, the only notable changes since then have been the provision of new tees to combat improvements in equipment.   Significantly and importantly Colt's challenge has been preserved

No.  Several bunkers were moved nearer to greens (and to each other) to make approaches more challenging in advance of the most recent Open.  The 9th hole has been significantly lengthened.  I think there are other changes but can't recall them now.

Reshaping of quite a few surrounds, was there not?

[Niall C]

On the one hand, nobody who's a member of Muirfield can be THAT upset with the fact that the club doesn't allow female members. Given that this vote only maintains the status quo (for now), I doubt many will be upset enough to leave.

Jason


I think that's a perceptive comment. I'm a member of a male only club. I recently played a round of golf with 3 pals who happen to be members of different clubs that are also male only, and the word used for their feeling on their clubs taking in lady members was that they were "ambivalent". I strongly suspect that a fair proportion of those in favour at Muirfield were ambivalent as well.


Niall

[Mark Bourgeois]

Mark


I assume what underpins your comment on architecture is the belief that having the Open will lead the powers that be to butcher the course to make it a better test. Surely if there is one course that is as great as it is because of the Open it is Muirfield, no ?


Niall

It's an interesting point, Niall. Herb Wind called it the finest "orthodox layout" in Britain, always looking like it is hosting a major the next day, and if by "layout" he means the whole ball of wax, then perhaps Muirfield's "steady state" is in fact a state of architectural flux at the knife of the R&A; ie the one great course in the land optimized for flog not golf.

The best solution of all would be if HCEG and the town of St Andrews could trade course ownership. With the R&A's new policy, the idea of HCEG lording over TOC warms the soul.

[Jon Wiggett]

I do not see a problem with all male membership clubs as there are plenty of all female ones about. I would suggest it would be better for the PC people to note that the majority of the membership was in favour of lady members being admitted. I would further say it is right that the R&A will not hold The Open there in the future.


Jon

[Joe Hellrung]

Good for the R&A.  The club can do what it wants, but the public face of golf in GB shouldn't associate with clubs that exclude members based on genetics.   

Joe


Where do you stand on clubs that are mixed but are so exclusive (and expensive) that ordinary visitors can't get on but they still host major tournaments for one of the governing bodies ?


Niall

You ask a good question Niall.

I like to think that golf continues to move over time from its elite-only origins to a game accessible to anyone.  I think the reality is somewhere in between.  The game has exclusive origins, and clubs typically form and attract members from like-minded positions in society (be it affluence, breeding, race, religion, or otherwise).  This is a truth that is in many ways politically incorrect and ugly, but it is still part of the game's history. 

Getting back to your question, the idea of passing on a club venue because it is hard to get into or expensive seems a bit different from one of sex.  One can make a fortune through hard work, luck, or both, so I don't think the fact that a club is merely expensive should keep the USGA away from hosting tournaments there.  The fact that a club is exclusive doesn't really matter either, but rather why the club is exclusive and on what grounds.  Does the club exclude persons based on their religion? Race? Sex?  Clearly these are bad practices.   
 
I would advise any organization that has a stated goal of promoting the game to distance itself from organizations whose practices run contrary to that goal.  In the present case, the R&A clearly has a goal of increasing accessibility of the game, so it seems contrary to that goal to host their most prestigious tournament at a club that excludes members based on genetics.  This doesn't mean that all Open courses have to be Bethpage Black. 

[Thomas Dai]

Wonderful course.


The world moves on though, sometimes in ways that are strange and mysterious and often unpredictably. Let's bare in mind though, that perhaps for different reasons, other wonderful courses in other parts of the world arn't on the rota's for their countries (National) Open's either.....and some regular rota venues disappear for decades only to return.


Other than Royal Portrush I wonder which courses (and when) will be added to The Open rota to replace Muirfield (and Trumpberry?)?


Atb

[Marty Bonnar]

It was just said on the BBC News that businesses in Gullane and East Lothian stand to lose around £70m a year if the Open moves away.
Maybe the Gullane #1/#2 composite could host the big tourney?
The R&A could really rub the HCEG's nose it it then!!!

F.

[K Rafkin]

It would be a shame if Muirfield had gone though the trouble of going though a land swap with The Renaissance Club in order add a buffer and to lengthen the 9th hole all for only one open.


However, If THCEG really just needs 2.3% more of their members to come around this is only a matter of time.

[Jon Wiggett]

Getting back to your question, the idea of passing on a club venue because it is hard to get into or expensive seems a bit different from one of sex.  One can make a fortune through hard work, luck, or both, so I don't think the fact that a club is merely expensive should keep the USGA away from hosting tournaments there.  The fact that a club is exclusive doesn't really matter either, but rather why the club is exclusive and on what grounds.  Does the club exclude persons based on their religion? Race? Sex?  Clearly these are bad practices.   

Joe,


the problem with this argument is where do you draw the line? The PGA Tour would have to be banned as it only allows male members. What about the NBA or NFL which are both guilty or even worse the LPGA Tour? If you start to look at political parties then the situation is worse and go down the religion route it becomes an even bigger problem.


Jon

[Jud_T]

Not sure what the fuss is about.  The club has a right to do what they please and the R&A have the right to tell them to take a flying you-know-what.  Seems to me since a decent portion of the club's mystique/rankings are based on holding majors that they will no doubt come around on the next vote.  Economics 101.

[Joe Hellrung]

Getting back to your question, the idea of passing on a club venue because it is hard to get into or expensive seems a bit different from one of sex.  One can make a fortune through hard work, luck, or both, so I don't think the fact that a club is merely expensive should keep the USGA away from hosting tournaments there.  The fact that a club is exclusive doesn't really matter either, but rather why the club is exclusive and on what grounds.  Does the club exclude persons based on their religion? Race? Sex?  Clearly these are bad practices.   

Joe,


the problem with this argument is where do you draw the line? The PGA Tour would have to be banned as it only allows male members. What about the NBA or NFL which are both guilty or even worse the LPGA Tour? If you start to look at political parties then the situation is worse and go down the religion route it becomes an even bigger problem.


Jon

Sorry Jon, I'm not sure I follow.  Why would the PGA tour have to be banned?  The issue is whether a course should be considered for major tournaments if it (i) discriminates from membership based on genetics and or (ii) if it is a very expensive and exclusive club.  As to question (i), my argument is that if promotion of the game is important to the USGA and R&A, then they are better served to find an interesting course that holds similar values.  At a very basic level, this means you don't associate with clubs that are discriminatory based on genetics or religion. 

A harder question, which is what Niall asked, is whether the Open and US Open should be held at clubs that are inaccessible due to exclusivity and price (question (ii)).  My opinion is that exclusivity based on non-genetic or religious factors and mere price point are on a different plane from sex, and I think that omitting courses based on these criteria would be a mistake.  There are great courses in the US and Britain that are exclusive and expensive that should be part of the rotation because they represent so strongly some of the other important goals of the USGA/R&A.  However, the Opens do a good job of sprinkling public courses (or at least publicly accessible) courses into the mix, which speaks to their commitment to expanding and promoting the game.  I suspect choosing a site is a balance between several factors - presenting an interesting course, logistical issues (crowds, hotels, etc.), the history of the game, the future of the game, etc.  To omit exclusive or expensive clubs because they are non-public and don't promote the game would mean ignoring all of the other goals of the R&A and USGA.  However, choosing a course that discriminates based on genetics is at a different level. 

Does that make sense?

[George Pazin]

I still believe the entire concept of tying a Mens open to the the skirts of female membership is a PR/PC scam.

Is it a Mens open? I thought it was The Open.

[Jaeger Kovich]

How many Muirfield members do you think belong to the R&A? 

[Mark Bourgeois]

Jon W

You are in error: the PGA Tour does not ban women.

[Mark Pearce]

How many Muirfield members do you think belong to the R&A? 

Not as many as you might think.

[Will Lozier]

...when membership turns over, the new Muirfield boys will want the prestige of holding an Open and will eventually knuckle under.  It wouldn't surprise me if Muirfield doesn't miss its slot!

+1

[Jon Wiggett]

Jon W

You are in error: the PGA Tour does not ban women.

Yet it has none. Mark, there might not be a specific rule saying only men can be members yet the fact that there are no women currently holding a PGA Tour card shows the entry requirements are such as to make it impossible and so a de facto mens only rule.


Joe,


if you accept the PGA Tour is the biggest tour in the world then I cannot see how it should be treated any differently to the majors. Having said that I was being a little contrary and am of a similar opinion to yourself except about golfs origins in the UK being exclusive.


As for courses holding The Open I am not aware of any that are not accessible though some might be over priced for the average player. As for the the US Open I am not totally clear as to what the situation is at many of the private clubs in the US which seems very alien to me. However, the choice should probably suit the culture of the country and as many normal private clubs in the US are not open to joe public then is it wrong for such clubs to hold a US major? I think people with a better awareness of the situation are more suited to say than I am.


Jon

[David Davis]

Hard to compare the PGA Tour to a private club. If I'm not mistaken Michelle Wie played in a couple events quite a few years back. Which seemed to be a mistake in retrospect however, I don't think there was an issue with her competing. Not sure if any men ever played in an LPGA Tour event?


Incidentally, I just received a call from the artist formerly known as Bruce Jenner, she was curious if cross gender members could keep their membership if the sex they currently identify themselves with was different from that which was on their birth certificate?


(sorry couldn't resist, but it's not unthinkable that something of this nature could pop up, although unlikely that it would happen in the UK at least before the US)

[Sean_A]

"Does the club exclude persons based on their religion? Race? Sex?  Clearly these are bad practices." 

This is definitely where the PC lot loses the plot.  Why exactly are private clubs based on religion, race or sex clearly bad practices?  That strikes me as a terrible assumption of motives on your part.  I can fully understand that any club which bases membership on race, religion, gender or social standing not be eligible for any government assistance and that any such clubs should not be allowed to act as businesses.  Which is why I have no problem with the R&A saying no thanks to HCEG. But I can see no reason why clubs basing membership on any of the above should not be allowed to exist...that is a pretty harsh judgement and one I would never presume to flippantly say "clearly these are bad practices".  I personally don't get all the exclusion crap that goes on in life, but so what if I don't understand.  Not everything in life should be dependant on my understanding the motives of behaviour.

I put my name down for membership at an all-male club without even knowing of the policy.  Guess I'm a bad guy 

Ciao

[jeffwarne]

"[size=78%]"A club that discriminates is using bad practices"[/size]
Is a club that won't allow a$$holes in using bad practices?


Given all the PC transgender nonsense floating around it would seem that one being excluded because of sex could quite readily solve that problem (though figuring out which bathroom to use might be dicey)



If one truly doesn't agree with another club's entry practices-don't play there