Open talking points in this months mag

[Birchy]

Just to clarify, my OP was questioning why the subject was not mentioned or commented on in the mag. Not if it is right or wrong, not the merits or not of it. I just that I found it strange that the subject that does influence the image of the game in a time of falling participation and membership and that dominated the build up to the event was not deemed to be about golf.

But Mike has answered and of course others have backed him up. I was not wanting to debate the rights and wrongs about it again. But was genuinely interested in what GM thought about it. If they would have said, as many on here seem to think, they thought it was a load of rubbish and did not harm the game in any way then that would have been fine.

The fact it didn't feature in the magazine should surely of given you in idea what they thought about it?

 

[Hacker Khan]

The fact it didn't feature in the magazine should surely of given you in idea what they thought about it?

Nope, it gave me the impression that as a leading golf magazine in the UK they were scared to offer an opinion if you must know. I really do not buy the 'it was not an issue' argument as it was widely reported throughout the world, therefore by definition it was an issue and a major talking point. The mag has run some excellent pieces on other issues effecting golf such as dress codes and slow play. And to me this fuss was similar to those in that it influences outsiders perception of the game. I was not wanting a fully blown article debating sexist in golf, but would have expected in an opinion piece on the Open in the talking points section, it may have been opined on.

But your interpretation is equally valid. It's all about opinions. Or not as the case may be.

 

[Birchy]

Nope, it gave me the impression that as a leading golf magazine in the UK they were scared to offer an opinion if you must know. I really do not buy the 'it was not an issue' argument as it was widely reported throughout the world, therefore by definition it was an issue and a major talking point. The mag has run some excellent pieces on other issues effecting golf such as dress codes and slow play. And to me this fuss was similar to those in that it influences outsiders perception of the game. I was not wanting a fully blown article debating sexist in golf, but would have expected in an opinion piece on the Open in the talking points section, it may have been opined on.

But your interpretation is equally valid. It's all about opinions. Or not as the case may be.

That's just it though, it wasn't a talking point of the open. Mickelson winning, Westwood blowing up, the course being superb etc are talking points of the open.

The women not being allowed as members at Muirfield is a politicians play thing nothing else. The fact it wasn't in GM backs up that fact in my view.

Maybe everyone at GM was just too busy reading the daily mail to notice.

 

[gryffindor]

Thank you mr 50%

Which 50%? - I am agreeing that there is an element of sexism in golf. (As in all walks of life)

 

[HawkeyeMS]

The fact that TRCoEG don't allow women members is largely irrelevent to your average club golfer. I dare say the male membership is rather exclusive as well so for me, it's not really an issue.

The more important thing to tackle is equality in clubs such as we all play and banging on about the membership policy of TRCoEG is going to do nothing to address that.

Lets face it, even if they did allow women to apply, I assume they would go to the bottom of the waiting list and there wouldn't actually be any female members for a good few years yet. They could always do what Augusta have done and allow a couple of high profile female members but that isn't really addressing the issue at all and would make no difference to you or I.

I know there are equality issues in golf clubs, but I also know that many of the clubs that you and I play at are addressing those issues. What the likes of Augusta or TRCoEG do or don't do doesn't and will never have any effect on 99.9% of the worlds golfing population.

The membership policy of TRCoEG is a polictical play thing, if it does change it's policy we will no doubt get the likes of Alex Salmond claiming he was responsible for triggering the change but it will do nothing to change golf for us normal folk.

If GM were to run a feature about equality in golf then it needs to tackle "our" clubs, not the exclusive ones which wouldn't take most people as members regardless of sex.

 

[thecraw's ghost]

That's just it though, it wasn't a talking point of the open. Mickelson winning, Westwood blowing up, the course being superb etc are talking points of the open.

The women not being allowed as members at Muirfield is a politicians play thing nothing else. The fact it wasn't in GM backs up that fact in my view.

Maybe everyone at GM was just too busy reading the daily mail to notice.

Actually it is a huge issue and 110% relevant to the Open as it was this years venue.

Big Phil winning is a story but so is the sexism and discrimination involved. If GM don't want to go down that road then that's there right to do so however there is no need to pretend its a non story.

 

[virtuocity]

GM still commits pages to ALL the major issues which have been discussed to death elsewhere in the media, but when they had the PERFECT opportunity to at least DISCUSS a wider-societal issue (read: problem) then they are found wanting.

I expected more than a 'we didn't discuss it because everyone else has said everything that has to be said on the matter' party line. This is the major disappointment.

At least have the guts to come out and say that you're fine with the current rules in place GM- this will also ensure that you continue to receive complimentary rounds of golf at such 'traditional' establishments.

 

[MizunoMike]

As I have said I think the women's golf is great and agree that it does not get as much coverage as it should do, GM for me have let themselves down here and going by some of the comments a lot of their members/readers also.

 

[Birchy]

Actually it is a huge issue and 110% relevant to the Open as it was this years venue.

Big Phil winning is a story but so is the sexism and discrimination involved. If GM don't want to go down that road then that's there right to do so however there is no need to pretend its a non story.

Im not pretending its a non story.

 

[Hacker Khan]

GM still commits pages to ALL the major issues which have been discussed to death elsewhere in the media, but when they had the PERFECT opportunity to at least DISCUSS a wider-societal issue (read: problem) then they are found wanting.

I expected more than a 'we didn't discuss it because everyone else has said everything that has to be said on the matter' party line. This is the major disappointment.

At least have the guts to come out and say that you're fine with the current rules in place GM- this will also ensure that you continue to receive complimentary rounds of golf at such 'traditional' establishments.

In the current climate on this board I admire you spunk there sir. Guess you'll be winning as many readers offers as me in the future now.

 

[HawkeyeMS]

As I have said I think the women's golf is great and agree that it does not get as much coverage as it should do, GM for me have let themselves down here and going by some of the comments a lot of their members/readers also.

The issue in question isn't about women's golf. It's about a clubs' right to decide it's own membership policy.

 

[Birchy]

In the current climate on this board I admire you spunk there sir. Guess you'll be winning as many readers offers as me in the future now.

Are you implying that GM discriminate against people in their competitions because of their opinions? :rofl:

 

[Birchy]

The issue in question isn't about women's golf. It's about a clubs' right to decide it's own membership policy.

Spot on.

 

[cookelad]

I'll be casting my vote again over the weekend when I make sure my TV is turned to the Solheim Cup coverage pretty much from start to finish. Women's golf will only get more airtime if more people watch what's already being broadcast!

Do I think Muirfield should invite ladies to be members? Absolutely - If I was committee member there, and the issue was raised I would without any consideration at all vote to invite ladies to join. But it's their choice and they're are only inviting who they want to the party. I don't really understand how it's still allowed in this day and age, and I'm sure if Muirfield told people of different ethnicities they weren't allowed to join they would very quickly be slapped with a racial lawsuit (which they would lose), so what's the difference between racism and sexism?

Should Muirfield, St Georges etc be allowed to hold a major event while they exercise their right to choose who they invite in? Unfortunately they hold all the cards on that one the R&A want to hold their annual championship at the best courses.

My hope is that as the next generation step in to fill the positions currently occupied by doddering old sexist fools the membership criteria will change, and both male only and female only clubs will be a thing of the past that future generations will look back on in shocked amazement that such things ever existed.

 

[Hacker Khan]

That's just it though, it wasn't a talking point of the open.

I suppose it depends on how you define The Open. If you/GM are saying the only thing you can talk about regarding the Open is what happens on the tees, fairways and greens from the first person teeing off on the Thursday morning to the last pairing knocking it in the hole on the 18th on the Sunday then I agree it's not a talking point.

But if you are referring to the state of Open itself, the current perception of the game, and one of the main things the vast majority of the public, including golfers, will remember about the Open this year, then it is an issue I thought worthy of discussion and comment.

 

[NWJocko]

Not getting involved in the sexism, just wondered if there was such a big outrage by politicians at the 2011 Open (or whenever it visits Troon/Muirfield/RSG there may be others)?

The thing that made me chuckle, and devalued the comments in the general press in my view, was that Augusta was held up as a beacon of light that Muirfield has to aspire to by "allowing" lady members when they were forced to act by virtue of the IBM situation and then invited an ex Secretary of State!! Sure are making that accessible!

Would it make any difference to the views on equality if Muirfield offered a couple of "token" (don't like using that word but can't think of another) memberships to high profile females?

Genuine questions.

 

[FairwayDodger]

The issue in question isn't about women's golf. It's about a clubs' right to decide it's own membership policy.

Actually it isn't. Agree with it or not, Muirfield are doing nothing "wrong" with their policy. The issue is whether the game's governing body was right to endorse such a policy by taking their flagship event there and whether they would be better advised to promote the game in a more positive light by visiting more inclusive venues.

 

[Birchy]

I suppose it depends on how you define The Open. If you/GM are saying the only thing you can talk about regarding the Open is what happens on the tees, fairways and greens from the first person teeing off on the Thursday morning to the last pairing knocking it in the hole on the 18th on the Sunday then I agree it's not a talking point.

But if you are referring to the state of Open itself, the current perception of the game, and one of the main things the vast majority of the public, including golfers, will remember about the Open this year, then it is an issue I thought worthy of discussion and comment.

The open is a golf tournament. The perception of the game is a wider issue and the open was "used" by some idiots in the press that week to try and get their opinion heard.

 

[Hacker Khan]

Not getting involved in the sexism, just wondered if there was such a big outrage by politicians at the 2011 Open (or whenever it visits Troon/Muirfield/RSG there may be others)?

The thing that made me chuckle, and devalued the comments in the general press in my view, was that Augusta was held up as a beacon of light that Muirfield has to aspire to by "allowing" lady members when they were forced to act by virtue of the IBM situation and then invited an ex Secretary of State!! Sure are making that accessible!

Would it make any difference to the views on equality if Muirfield offered a couple of "token" (don't like using that word but can't think of another) memberships to high profile females?

Genuine questions.

Yes it would as in my opinion it's all about the perception. By allowing this to happen it is just giving the haters another reason to hate and another string to their bow when they argue that that the game is elitist and out of touch blah blah and indeed blah. And I do believe Dawson knows this but he is caught in a very difficult position.

Perception will always trump facts. Always. And defending it with facts like it's only 0.5% of clubs that are single sex, there's only 2 female members at Augusta I think is kind of missing the point. That does nothing to change the perception of the game which I think we could all agree with needs to improve as one way of encouraging more people to play and become involved.

Where as the R&A allowing female members to join and following the USGA who do not award the US Open to clubs that have single sex membership policies will do a lot to change the perception of the game and the people that run it.

 

[Hacker Khan]

Are you implying that GM discriminate against people in their competitions because of their opinions? :rofl:

I genuinely hope they do. I would if I were them. If they had some mouthy idiot on their forum just banging on about the Daily Mail all the time and having a go at them do you think they'd then give them a free set of clubs?