Have golf clubs changed socially in the UK?

[craigstardis1976]

Hi People,

For those of you who are old enough to remember, when did golf clubs in the UK change from being places of "Members Only" run by old men who kept their military titles in civvy street, had to have a handicap to become a member, couldn't join if you were not a member, needed to know the right people to get "into the club" and other such socialized elitism become less common?

Why were those attitudes once deemed desirable in a golf club? Why did members embrace them and perpetuate these ethics. Was it seen as much a part of the game as the game itself?

I understand and a desire to be commercially successful but apparently (at least according to a book I am currently reading) this was the norm (perceived or otherwise) well into the 1990s and probably still is in the minds of some.

So can anyone tell me why it was so great, why it was allowed to happen, what were the benefits, and what happened if you wanted to change it. It does seem very antiquated yet it wasn't that long ago.

Thanks,

Craig.

 

[Farmergeddon]

I came to golf late in life in 1987, in those 28 years or so and hundreds of courses played I have only once come across golf club snobbery that was beyond the pall the rest of the time it all appeared logical to me, a sort of discipline to keep everyone on the same page.. One thing you have to remember that back in the day golf courses were built and maintained by the members and at their largesse too they had every right to put in place what rules they wished, all that changed when the pursuit of filthy lucre rather than the wish to play golf widened the membership. Good thing or bad thing? well most of of the old boys have past away now leaving only their name on club trophies and their apprentices are vanishing too so eventually the modernists will get their way and clubs and courses will be free and open to do and wear what is desired.. Club houses like pubs and courses with the manners of the street a good thing?? I think not.

 

[Robster59]

To be honest, in lots of cases they changed when they could not afford to be so choosy. Like yourself, I remember that old school of snobbery and I guess they felt they could do it because they had people queuing up to be members of their club and so could be particular about who they would, or would not, allow to be a member. I've played as a guest at many a members club in the past where dress code on and off the course was very strictly adhered to and whoa betide you if you strayed from it. So if you wanted to be a member of those clubs you either adhered to those rules or, quite simply, you didn't get in.

Most clubs now don't have a waiting list and realise that there is choice out there and the consumer is now "in charge" in as much as there is plenty of choice. One of the results of this is that they have relaxed their views quite considerably.

It wasn't great and harked back to the old gentleman's clubs. Nowadays that attitude is much more the exception than the rule and the club is a much less intimidating place to be and is also more family friendly. And better for it.

The trouble is that whilst that is now the case, the view of lots of non-golfers is that golf clubs are still like that and have the perception that is all still ties, blazers, old farts etc. and that is something that golf has to address as a spot globally. The new generation of young golfers help in this in that they now dress more fashionably whilst still showing respect for the etiquette and manners that are still required on the course (and that's not snobbery, that's just respect for fellow golfers).

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

It changed with the widespread introduction of proprietary clubs when people decided there was money to be made out of golf. At that point it became all about extracting as much money as possible from the public rather than private clubs running on a non profit basis. Probably around early 80's as a rough guess?

 

[User62651]

Yes they have changed socially but there are huge contrasts between rural and urban areas and different parts of the UK and Ireland. Where I grew up in Scottish Highlands in 1980s golf was a game for everyone, most members were everyday ordinary folk, not wealthy or privileged. However head for East Lothian/Aberdeen/Ayrshire/Fife coast links courses and the situation was reversed - people pressure meant mainly the elite get in and they loved to let you know it, I sense England is much like that all over given the much larger populace and therefore demand all over but I've only played a couple of courses there so can't say for sure.
As a teenager I had junior membership at £10 a year for a half decent track. We all wore jeans to play as juniors, never caused a problem. We could get soft drinks and crisps at the bar etc and felt fairly welcome in the clubhouse, helped I think by some of our school teachers being keen members and encouraging junior comps etc. We weren't restricted on tee times either. Feel lucky I got that opportunity which I wouldn't have had in city areas of Scotland or many other parts of the UK as it would have been unaffordable.
I find the elitist stuffy attitude still prevalent at many 'top' UK courses to be offputting and uncomfortable, I think that's how they like it though - it's like they want to maintain a class system and look down their noses at you, try and embarrass you even, yet happy to take your money. It is changing but slowly - look at Muirfield and Troon with female membership issues of late.
Thankfully north Scotland, a few courses apart, isn't really like that.
Such is life though.

 

[Liverbirdie]

Yes they have, overall.

I think it is on a club by club basis, though.

Lee park golf club 1954 - Lots of Jewish people couldn't get into other courses, or they had to keep quiet that they were Jewish. the Jewish community in Liverpool then bought land (many of them non-golfers and with no intention of playing golf, or even had no children, who would take advantage also). So in effect they put money and time in for their greater community. They also said that they wouldn't stop others joining on the basis of race, creed, religion or colour (whether they did on social status, I don't know).


Lee park 1980 ish - a reasonably well<script id="gpt-impl-0.05806365536467051" src="http://partner.googleadservices.com/gpt/pubads_impl_95.js"></script>-to-do club, who even had caddies, a joining fee etc.

Lee park 2002 - You need £700 to get in (up front), also £700 green fees, so I think you needed to find £1400 in one go.

Lee park 2003 ish - They now let you pay the £700 joining fee over 10 years, green fees where £700 year (now allowable via direct debit) , so you just need £140 to get up and running. Interviewed by a judge and the current captain, and also had 2 proposers from lads who I played footy with.

Lee park 2008 (approx) - No joining fee needed, no proposers needed.

That's when they let the likes of Stuc in, been downhill since.:rofl:

The above will be different for the premium Merseyside clubs like Hillside, Wallasey and other dependent on number of proposers, handicap, years playing as a golfer, previous clubs, job, social status and other things. Possibly let 20-30% of applicants in (only be guestimate)

Lee park, and other Merseyside clubs will generally take your money and let you join gladly, and a lot of time without even an interview nowadays. I'd be surprised if they turn more than 5% away.

To me, Surrey will have a different story, so not fair to lump English courses into one category, although do appreciate that in Scotland it is a more working class game. thankfully becoming more and more so in England.

 

[craigstardis1976]

I came to golf late in life in 1987, in those 28 years or so and hundreds of courses played I have only once come across golf club snobbery that was beyond the pall the rest of the time it all appeared logical to me, a sort of discipline to keep everyone on the same page.. One thing you have to remember that back in the day golf courses were built and maintained by the members and at their largesse too they had every right to put in place what rules they wished, all that changed when the pursuit of filthy lucre rather than the wish to play golf widened the membership. Good thing or bad thing? well most of of the old boys have past away now leaving only their name on club trophies and their apprentices are vanishing too so eventually the modernists will get their way and clubs and courses will be free and open to do and wear what is desired.. Club houses like pubs and courses with the manners of the street a good thing?? I think not.

I definitely get a lot of the points you are making and I think your discipline reason sounds logical. If I may ask a couple of things...

1. Why do you think there was a prevalence for military men to use their titles at the golf club. My Grandad was highly ranked in the military but never would have dreamed of using that title in the regular world.

2. Why the assumption modernists would want a golf club to have manners of the street?

Thanks,

Craig.

 

[craigstardis1976]

To be honest, in lots of cases they changed when they could not afford to be so choosy. Like yourself, I remember that old school of snobbery and I guess they felt they could do it because they had people queuing up to be members of their club and so could be particular about who they would, or would not, allow to be a member. I've played as a guest at many a members club in the past where dress code on and off the course was very strictly adhered to and whoa betide you if you strayed from it. So if you wanted to be a member of those clubs you either adhered to those rules or, quite simply, you didn't get in.

Most clubs now don't have a waiting list and realise that there is choice out there and the consumer is now "in charge" in as much as there is plenty of choice. One of the results of this is that they have relaxed their views quite considerably.

It wasn't great and harked back to the old gentleman's clubs. Nowadays that attitude is much more the exception than the rule and the club is a much less intimidating place to be and is also more family friendly. And better for it.

The trouble is that whilst that is now the case, the view of lots of non-golfers is that golf clubs are still like that and have the perception that is all still ties, blazers, old farts etc. and that is something that golf has to address as a spot globally. The new generation of young golfers help in this in that they now dress more fashionably whilst still showing respect for the etiquette and manners that are still required on the course (and that's not snobbery, that's just respect for fellow golfers).

Do you think those ho were all ties blazers and old school snobbery knew the damage they were doing to the games image or do you think they just did not care?

Also ai wonder what kind of game they thought it was. Essentially a social tool to differentiate themselves, a sport, a way of asserting social superiority and what was the need of that?

Thanks,

Craig.

 

[craigstardis1976]

Yes they have changed socially but there are huge contrasts between rural and urban areas and different parts of the UK and Ireland. Where I grew up in Scottish Highlands in 1980s golf was a game for everyone, most members were everyday ordinary folk, not wealthy or privileged. However head for East Lothian/Aberdeen/Ayrshire/Fife coast links courses and the situation was reversed - people pressure meant mainly the elite get in and they loved to let you know it, I sense England is much like that all over given the much larger populace and therefore demand all over but I've only played a couple of courses there so can't say for sure.
As a teenager I had junior membership at £10 a year for a half decent track. We all wore jeans to play as juniors, never caused a problem. We could get soft drinks and crisps at the bar etc and felt fairly welcome in the clubhouse, helped I think by some of our school teachers being keen members and encouraging junior comps etc. We weren't restricted on tee times either. Feel lucky I got that opportunity which I wouldn't have had in city areas of Scotland or many other parts of the UK as it would have been unaffordable.
I find the elitist stuffy attitude still prevalent at many 'top' UK courses to be offputting and uncomfortable, I think that's how they like it though - it's like they want to maintain a class system and look down their noses at you, try and embarrass you even, yet happy to take your money. It is changing but slowly - look at Muirfield and Troon with female membership issues of late.
Thankfully north Scotland, a few courses apart, isn't really like that.
Such is life though.

Golf in Phoenix AZ I ink is a lot more like how you describe golf in North Scotland. Yes there are very exclusive enclaves but there are literally hundreds of courses to choose from from pitch and putts to 7500 yard behemoths and most of them you can get very reasonable deals at.

Why hey do you think "they" like it the way they described?

 

[craigstardis1976]

Yes they have, overall.

I think it is on a club by club basis, though.

Lee park golf club 1954 - Lots of Jewish people couldn't get into other courses, or they had to keep quiet that they were Jewish. the Jewish community in Liverpool then bought land (many of them non-golfers and with no intention of playing golf, or even had no children, who would take advantage also). So in effect they put money and time in for their greater community. They also said that they wouldn't stop others joining on the basis of race, creed, religion or colour (whether they did on social status, I don't know).


Lee park 1980 ish - a reasonably well<script id="gpt-impl-0.05806365536467051" src="http://partner.googleadservices.com/gpt/pubads_impl_95.js"></script>-to-do club, who even had caddies, a joining fee etc.

Lee park 2002 - You need £700 to get in (up front), also £700 green fees, so I think you needed to find £1400 in one go.

Lee park 2003 ish - They now let you pay the £700 joining fee over 10 years, green fees where £700 year (now allowable via direct debit) , so you just need £140 to get up and running. Interviewed by a judge and the current captain, and also had 2 proposers from lads who I played footy with.

Lee park 2008 (approx) - No joining fee needed, no proposers needed.

That's when they let the likes of Stuc in, been downhill since.:rofl:

The above will be different for the premium Merseyside clubs like Hillside, Wallasey and other dependent on number of proposers, handicap, years playing as a golfer, previous clubs, job, social status and other things. Possibly let 20-30% of applicants in (only be guestimate)

Lee park, and other Merseyside clubs will generally take your money and let you join gladly, and a lot of time without even an interview nowadays. I'd be surprised if they turn more than 5% away.

To me, Surrey will have a different story, so not fair to lump English courses into one category, although do appreciate that in Scotland it is a more working class game. thankfully becoming more and more so in England.

I have heard of Jewish golf clubs here in the USA where something similar happened so it must be fairly common.

what would be the social reasons to exclude someone from membership? You mention the kind of job they have. I broadcast horse racing is that considered a suitable job?

 

[Liverbirdie]

I have heard of Jewish golf clubs here in the USA where something similar happened so it must be fairly common.

what would be the social reasons to exclude someone from membership? You mention the kind of job they have. I broadcast horse racing is that considered a suitable job?

I played with an old Jewish gentleman 2 weeks ago, and he told me a few examples of the exclusions in the 60's-70's of some other clubs.

One guy joined another club, which also didnt favour Jews, but he kept his religion quiet. The secretary at that club said to him "you'll be fine here but never propose a Jew or a black person (although he didnt say black person, but the common vernacular of the time).

Certain jobs are still aligned to social status. Doctors, lawyers, colonels, Vicars were probably looked on favourably. Nurses, legal secretaries, privates and Rabbis probably not so much. Both examples are in the same sphere, but the "social status" or associated wages mean they aren't.

 

[Junior]

I have heard of Jewish golf clubs here in the USA where something similar happened so it must be fairly common.

what would be the social reasons to exclude someone from membership? You mention the kind of job they have. I broadcast horse racing is that considered a suitable job?

Many golf clubs 'back in the day' were owned and run by the membership. So, if you were accepted, you were effectively a shareholder of the club. Entrance therefore was in a way determined by wealth. I've not been playing golf long enough to remember, but it was generally doctors, successful businessmen, solicitors and considerations were given to members of the clergy and the forces etc. Some clubs even didn't have set fees. Basically at the end of each year the cost of running the club was simply divided up between the members. Therefore to join such a club, they had to be sure you had the $$$$$. The advent of artisans members went some way to offset the costs.

Proprietary clubs which are privately owned and run for profit have (generally) lower fees and quite a few have opened across the country. I know I could walk into several clubs within a 15 mile radius and, as long as I paid, could join easily. In general , this is because of decline in golf membership and clubs now have been forced to widen their search and compete for members. Now they can't afford to be so choosey. Even some of the 'members owned clubs' are also in this boat now, but some, more exclusive clubs are still afforded this luxury.


edit : what I will also say, and be fascinated to hear about is how clubs in Scotland and Norn Ireland managed their membership. I know the Muifields and Loch almonds of this world existed but Golf seemed much more a working mans game and quality public courses seemed extremely accessible, with lots of clubs having access to different courses.

 

[patricks148]

We still have a few retired Army, RAF and Naval Offices along with at least 4 Vickers, but i imagine there are far less of this type of profession than there was 30 years ago esp the Army in Scotland.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

I definitely get a lot of the points you are making and I think your discipline reason sounds logical. If I may ask a couple of things...

1. Why do you think there was a prevalence for military men to use their titles at the golf club. My Grandad was highly ranked in the military but never would have dreamed of using that title in the regular world.

2. Why the assumption modernists would want a golf club to have manners of the street?

Thanks,

Craig.

The right to maintain Officer Rank when retired is laid down in Queens Regulations and lot of these people you may of seen in Golf Clubs in the past earned their Rank through many conflicts and were seen in the past as someone of a particular bearing or standard.

Whether they used the abbreviation Retd after their name was down to themselves.

Recent years has seen retired Officers no longer make as public their previous service for various reasons, security being one amongst others.

 

[craigstardis1976]

I played with an old Jewish gentleman 2 weeks ago, and he told me a few examples of the exclusions in the 60's-70's of some other clubs.

One guy joined another club, which also didnt favour Jews, but he kept his religion quiet. The secretary at that club said to him "you'll be fine here but never propose a Jew or a black person (although he didnt say black person, but the common vernacular of the time).

Certain jobs are still aligned to social status. Doctors, lawyers, colonels, Vicars were probably looked on favourably. Nurses, legal secretaries, privates and Rabbis probably not so much. Both examples are in the same sphere, but the "social status" or associated wages mean they aren't.

Sounds like the basis of a great sociological study if I were at University. Thanks so much!

 

[craigstardis1976]

Many golf clubs 'back in the day' were owned and run by the membership. So, if you were accepted, you were effectively a shareholder of the club. Entrance therefore was in a way determined by wealth. I've not been playing golf long enough to remember, but it was generally doctors, successful businessmen, solicitors and considerations were given to members of the clergy and the forces etc. Some clubs even didn't have set fees. Basically at the end of each year the cost of running the club was simply divided up between the members. Therefore to join such a club, they had to be sure you had the $$$$$. The advent of artisans members went some way to offset the costs.

Proprietary clubs which are privately owned and run for profit have (generally) lower fees and quite a few have opened across the country. I know I could walk into several clubs within a 15 mile radius and, as long as I paid, could join easily. In general , this is because of decline in golf membership and clubs now have been forced to widen their search and compete for members. Now they can't afford to be so choosey. Even some of the 'members owned clubs' are also in this boat now, but some, more exclusive clubs are still afforded this luxury.


edit : what I will also say, and be fascinated to hear about is how clubs in Scotland and Norn Ireland managed their membership. I know the Muifields and Loch almonds of this world existed but Golf seemed much more a working mans game and quality public courses seemed extremely accessible, with lots of clubs having access to different courses.

Hi Junior,

Thanks so much for that. It would indeed be interesting to see how it is handled in different parts of the country. Do you think it's fair to say this is why professional golf was perhaps not at the high standard overall in the UK as it was in America? Essentially because golf was basically just the game played as part of belonging to an amateur social elite?

 

[craigstardis1976]

The right to maintain Officer Rank when retired is laid down in Queens Regulations and lot of these people you may of seen in Golf Clubs in the past earned their Rank through many conflicts and were seen in the past as someone of a particular bearing or standard.

Whether they used the abbreviation Retd after their name was down to themselves.

Recent years has seen retired Officers no longer make as public their previous service for various reasons, security being one amongst others.

My Grandad had a highly accomplished military career. I just fail to see, as he would have, the significance of it in the running of a club. Essentially were they not using it to draw attention and presumed authority to themselves?

I remember my Grandad wearing his military blazer and regimental tie on occasion. As Nanna used to tell him..."You're retired now, darling. Here, have a Scotch!"

 

[Deleted member 16999]

My Grandad had a highly accomplished military career. I just fail to see, as he would have, the significance of it in the running of a club. Essentially were they not using it to draw attention and presumed authority to themselves?

I remember my Grandad wearing his military blazer and regimental tie on occasion. As Nanna used to tell him..."You're retired now, darling. Here, have a Scotch!"

As others have stated it goes back to the perception of having the "right sort" of membership and Military Officers (especially those with a highly accomplished military career) were held in the same regard as Doctors, Lawyers etc. Again it was perceived that they were more disciplined, organised and would maintain the values and standards the club wished to portray.
Your Grandfather hold's the Kings/Queens commission until the day he died/dies and is recorded in Military Records forever.
He had the right to use the abbreviation and whether he did or didn't was his choice. Neither way was incorrect.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Definitely changed. When I first joined a club as a junior, we couldn't use the bar and the adults had to wear jacket and tie in the bar after 7.00 which everyone just accepted as the norm. There was a waiting list and it was run as what was then seen as a very traditional club, The list of do's and don'ts were massive and again accepted as the norm.

These days, with the exception of our old friend dress code, things have progressed and my club is far more inclusive and open and it's a place you want to be in and enjoy rather than the dark old days where you were always felt on edge. There are still exceptions and some are happy to be "traditionalist" and hold onto older virtues and that is fine. If you join you know what you're buying into. On the whole golf clubs are getting better, but there is still more that can be done

 

[user2010]

Golf clubs are what YOU want them to be.