Open talking points in this months mag

[Allanxyz]

we are a golf magazine, we like to focus on golf not politics.

In my opinion, this doesn't make sense... the debate may have been hijacked by the polititions but this is very much a debate that golf needs to have. As pointed out by other posters the magazine has lots of articles about speed of play and how golf should change/improve in order to get more people playing golf.

The R&A states on its website "Our overall aim is to encourage more people to play more golf in more places", if it wants to do this it has to balance the obvious advantages of having its showcase event on one of the best and most historic courses in the word against one that has a discriminatory memebership policy (which is bound to recieve negative press and do nothing to make golf more open and change its image)

I'd rather read an opinion in a golf magazine about this than have a cut and paste of a press release of the weekly TM driver release.

Having said all that, it's a simple choice if you don't like the content of the mag then don't buy it... but I think if you've forked out the cash you are entitled to an opinion and the magazine should welcome feedback on its content.

 

[GreiginFife]

In this age of 24 hour media coverage, the internet, twitter, facebook and social media which lets face it, are used by the vast majority of young people that the game needs to attract, do we really think people wanting to take the game up will be ignorant and will not have an opinion or perception of the game of golf before they try it out? Even before all this bruhaahaa?

But I agree that of course it has done the game no good what so ever. And that is kind of my point, it's hurting the good of the game to some extent.

I suppose what I meant from that was, how many youngsters when questioned about why they woulsn't take up golf, would answer that is was because of sexist policies on membership - prior to the publicity that this received?
None that I know of, the main reasons cited that I have encountered are; It's boring, it takes too long, it costs too much (that's the main one) or that they don't know how to play and have no inclination to learn.
Never have I had someone say it's because they feel that a small percentage of golf clubs insist on having non-inclusive membership policies...
You may have, but I certainly haven't. Personally, from the majority of youths I encounter I would probably wager that they don't really care about it either.

 

[bladeplayer]

In my opinion, this doesn't make sense... the debate may have been hijacked by the polititions but this is very much a debate that golf needs to have.

.
i think you have answered yourself right here Allan , subject got hijacked so GM stepped away from it then ..

if anything politicians have damaged the chances of having it debated by the people who it intrests most .. the venue was picked years ago , nothing has changed at the venue in those years so why the debate just now ? also is it being discussed in other realms of the media still ? not to my knowledge ..

The R&A states on its website "Our overall aim is to encourage more people to play more golf in more places", if it wants to do this it has to balance the obvious advantages of having its showcase event on one of the best and most historic courses in the word against one that has a discriminatory memebership policy (which is bound to recieve negative press and do nothing to make golf more open and change its image)

For the record i agree with your stance on discrimination , but im sue if you look you will find numerous programmes and systems the R&A have set up to promote golf world wide , ok they got one wrong in this but in general it does what it says on the tin

Having said all that, it's a simple choice if you don't like the content of the mag then don't buy it... but I think if you've forked out the cash you are entitled to an opinion and the magazine should welcome feedback on its content

.


Here i think you have got it wrong, NOT the your entitled to your opinion part, of course you are , but GM very much welcome & appreciate feedback & comment, they have the letters page and have given us the forumers our own section , Mike H makes himself available to all and sundry via email if you have comment or query , as far as i know they even have a reader panel to help them keep in touch with reader opinion

...

 

[Hacker Khan]

Never have I had someone say it's because they feel that a small percentage of golf clubs insist on having non-inclusive membership policies...

No if phrased like that. But if you reword it to people saying the elitist image of the game is an issue, and for some females the perceived attitude to them from the people that run the game is a barrier to entry, it then is an issue.

It's taking it in the whole context.

 

[FairwayDodger]

I suppose what I meant from that was, how many youngsters when questioned about why they woulsn't take up golf, would answer that is was because of sexist policies on membership - prior to the publicity that this received?
None that I know of.

Not exactly a youngster (nobody tell her!) but my OH has been getting into golf but has already stated she is unlikely to ever join a club due to the sexism she has observed at my club. This issue only reinforced her opinion.

 

[GreiginFife]

No if phrased like that. But if you reword it to people saying the elitist image of the game is an issue, and for some females the perceived attitude to them from the people that run the game is a barrier to entry, it then is an issue.

It's taking it in the whole context.

Elitism is nothing to do with gender, Ladies low HC can be as guilty as men at elitism.
I have taken it in it's whole context, but stretching the context to fit the argument is where I draw the line. You could say that anyone can find an issue to percieve as a barrier, then they become issues too. Does it mean all have to be addressed?
Lets say for arguments sake that you are right, what % of female golfers represents "some"?

I am not in favour of the Muirfield policy but to say their membership policy has been a blocker to people paying golf until it suddenly became a public domain issue is IMO unfounded (unless stats are provided to the contrary). In 26 years of playing golf I have never heard one female complain of sexist memberships (Karen, granted your OH is an exception in this case), elitism yes but that elitism was more to do with ability than gender and applied to both men and women.

 

[Hacker Khan]

I notice no one has said anything about the comments I made in the OP about how hot GMAC is looking on the subscribers edition cover.

Sexist pigs.....

 

[Sweep]

I notice no one has said anything about the comments I made in the OP about how hot GMAC is looking on the subscribers edition cover.

Sexist pigs.....

If you find him attractive, who am I to argue...

 

[thecraw's ghost]

If you are a "golf magazine that likes to concentrate on golf" why do you accept advertising revenue from car companies, expensive watch companies etc? As I said earlier its your right to decide what you print as your in charge however your reasons should be consistent.

A bit like Radar's post a few months ago which just bigged up Sky and belittled the competition. That wasn't really "golf" more of a blatant plug.