http://www.geoffshackelford.com/

So I spend a small part of my day getting updates from this blog, which are usually the latest news and information fit to discuss in the world of golf. Today however, is explosive to say the least, depending on what you are willing to wager an opinion on.

  1. Clintons out, Mickelson in at what was formerly the Bob Hope Desert Classic (man, do I miss him and Bing, and their great contribution to building the PGA Tour brand before it became a cesspool of corporate greed)

  2. Muirfield votes to retain a male only membership. The debate over there is all about the rights of private clubs to associate freely, or give in to political correctness just to host a stupid golf tournament.

  3. R&A basically gives Muirfield the middle finger because of their vote against allowing women members, by telling Muirfield they will not be in the Open rota until they allow women members. So now we can debate the merits of golf's ultimate governing body giving one of the most storied clubs the middle finger.

You gotta admit, no matter where you come down on these issues, it's fun to have something interesting to weigh in on. Not that you asked, but I'm thrilled that Mickelson finally gets to host a tournament, and equally as thrilled that the PGA Tour unloaded the toxic and polarizing Clinton cartel from that tournament in the desert.

I'm also firmly supporting Muirfield in keeping the membership of the club however they see fit. I am a firm advocate that freedom of association must be defended at all costs. I also have no problem with the R&A removing Muirfield from the Open rota. I'm sure the majority of members at Muirfield are saying something along the lines of, "Oh darn, we don't have to have our golf course destroyed once a decade or so to the mob of golf fans that comes with hosting an Open." Yeah, the R&A will miss Muirfield more than Muirfield will miss the R&A.

It kind of has shades of Pine Valley keeping their fabulous club away from the manipulating douchebags that run the USGA or PGA of America. Granted, the logistics don't work for Pine Valley hosting a US Open or a PGA, but I'm always rooting for freedom of association, versus cowtowing to political correctness.

Don't forget - the week started with 3 consecutive water balls from wedge range with Tiger.

Still waiting to see which pro golfer is next in line to remove himself from the Olympic games...

The R & A should have left the Muirfield alone.

What's wrong with bunch of old farts wish to get away from their daily routine ? The women could start their own club if they wish and don't think they don't wish to be with themselves sometimes also .

Why are we overboard with these kind of issue ? we have nothing else to worry about ? How about no potable water in the next century ?

    Release Why are we overboard with these kind of issue ? we have nothing else to worry about ? How about no potable water in the next century ?

    Preach on!

    What you call PC I call an economic imperative.

    The game is fading. One smart way to slow that trend, if not reverse it, is to be more welcoming to slightly more than half of the world's population.

    The R&A knows this, and are acting on behalf of the people who just don't get it.

    Comparing to the Tiger Boom, yes, the growth of the game is slowing down and lots of the crowd rushed to the game back then because it was a fashionable trend had backed out on the sideline.

    Good thing is, those parked on the sideline could jump back into the game again anytime in the future. The only way for us - the hooked for lifer - to quite the game would be either health reason or financial reason.

    The dwindling "middle class" will be the biggest reason why this game of golf in this country is lack of the ZING it had a decade ago. Middle class is slowly disappearing here in this country and the rising middle class in other countries in the world could not afford the basic public golf facility, yet.

    The "other half" had been playing this game and increased in numbers of participation over the last 3 decades as I see it around here. But most of the other half also hold a full time job. Allowing them to get into one of the old and stinky golf club on the isles will not make any difference in promoting the game of golf. In other words, it makes no difference taking away the rights ( yes, these old farts have rights just like the rest of us ), would not make a dent in promoting the game. The difference is, the other half have a choice to exercise their "right" somewhere else but the few holding up a tradition have nowhere else to go, that's the difference.

    Let me give an example, I'll use an analogy different than the scenario of the Muirfield incident but parallel in a sense. So the R & A forcing the " equal right" down the throat of a bunch of members of the Muirfield because it is politically correct thing to do for today ? So why would Muirfield members not give in like the Augusta National? Taking in a few "exceptions" to shut the R & A up and everyone would be happy - for now ?

    It is because the Muirfield members would not give in to something in which change nothing or make little difference to the others, anyway.

    The action of constant squeezing and needling to have others to "conform "may not be the best way of doing it.

    Health pull back relating to the aging issue. As the current regular patron of the game get sick or aged, can the next generation replace the number ? This question tied into the economic matter ; which is the reducing "middle class " could also mean less regular patrons in this game.

    Personally, I used to play 50-70 rounds of golf each year just 5 years ago. Now I'm getting out maybe 30 rounds or less and looking to reduce that number soon. Getting aged, not enjoying getting out 5:30 A.M. to play the first round in the day is one reason, schedule wise fitting an 18 into a work day is not likely if I don't get out at first light of the day. Secondly, even the public Muni courses are charging $45 for green fee. I would not call this affordable, certainly would be very hard on the retired folks with fixed income. When a decision comes down to whether to eat steak or hamburger for the weekend with family, sometimes golfers will skip a round or two.

    I know quite a few guys I play with regularly had almost quit the game completely because of financial decision.
    Once they start drifting away from a weekly routine then the game wouldn't grasp them like it used to.

    With regards to an aging golf population, I tend to wonder where golf will be in 20 years as the current flock of retirees who take up a majority of the tee times at country clubs across the land have their ashes spread across the 10th tee boxes of the world. I look at golfers my age (pushing 50) and I do not know one man my age who has the passion for the game I do and consider it a priority in their lives. Most if you call them to play they have better things to do and getting out to golf is way down on the list of things they want to do.

    As for the cost of golf, I pay $50 a month for a membership at an out of county club that is actually about 35 minutes from my house. It's typicall wide open and after 3 rounds a month it's essentially free to play, and I generally play there 4 or 5 times a month. There are several county munis within an easy drive that are $15 or less to walk. I keep my pull cart in the car for spur of the moment after work rounds at either.

    So golf around here is more affordable than going to the movies, so I don't see the cost issue. Granted, I can easily play at courses charging more that are in better shape, or purchase a $200 a month membership to join a club, but I just can't pull the trigger on something like that, especially if you consider that these more expensive courses are busier when I would want to play.

    It's honestly hard to know if the game is at a crossroads, especially when you look at the popularity and growth of the PGA Tour.

    Back to Muirfield, we're talking about a segment of the population that is completely insulated and isolated from reality, and money is not an issue. They play life by their own rules, and the prestige of belonging to a club that predates the American Revolution comes with it's own rewards and status symbols. Honestly, their policies whether changed or not, affect no one except the obtuse minds of journalists and stuffed shirts trying to appease the general public at the R&A. I doubt anyone at Muirfield even cares what anyone outside the club thinks or says.

      PIGDivot

      Yes and yes, in those situation my personal opinion is to leave the Muirfield members alone. The R & A was inserting their authority and postured above those whom made the R & A possible in the first place.

      It makes no difference if they nominate Laura Davies or Chiwetel Ejiofor as honorable member. It does nothing but to show the R & A is doing their part to match what Augusta National had done.

      Golf industry will retract back to the standing of several decades ago. Lets face it. Golf take time to play and more time to practice if one wish to be decent at this game. It takes a fair amount of money to support this habit.
      Spending $2,000-$3,000 a year on green fees around any major metropolitan area is a minimum for weekly rounds at Public Daily fee golf courses, on top of that will be the traveling time and money, golf balls, and other expense relating to participating this game. It's a nice chunk of change and if one translate this into grocery bills, it pays 30 trips to Costco with loads of goods.

      Once a senior told me, he'd rather pay the green fees than give it to the Doctors/ pharmacy. It is true when senior get out several times a week to walk the golf course, regardless of their golf score, they will benefit from the outdoor and exercise, physically and mentally.

      I would predict more visit to the hospitals and Doctors and pharmacy by the senior golfers, if we take golf away from the general population of seniors.

      I would like to play more golf myself before I could not lift a golf club, but I have obligations. Work until I drop is what I told my wife, it'll have to be. Eventually I'll have to drop this game for 6 more years and wait and see if I have the ability to get back to this game in the future. If I'm still physically and financially able to.

      What if Muirfield had voted to keep out blacks? Then what would you say?

        candukid

        I can only tell you this.

        Even if all of us are of the same origin, there would be discrimination of some sort.
        It's part of the built in human trace.

        Even if we all looked alike, there would be no perfect equality. Perfect equality exist only on paper.

        What one need to do is instead of crying foul, shack off the chips on one's shoulders and shows whom deserve to be on the top. Be nice when one is on the top of the food chain, since the roles could reverse in a hurry