jpglov

Thanks for your note @Golfingdad. I laughed out loud when I read the article @Vinsk posted. Maybe Anya is on this site...???

I am specifically talking about the members of a club who are NOT OK with all of the hassles. A club is like any other community of people. They rarely are uniform in opinion. Let's say, in this case, that the club's Board, after a lot of debate among the members, makes a decision to host an event. So now there are a bunch of disgruntled members who are at the event and they see players dressed in clothing that they, the members, can't or wouldn't wear and that wouldn't be allowed to be worn by their daughters or (more likely) granddaughters. And they make sure their Board knows how upset they are by that, even though it may mask or simply be additive to their other major concerns. If you're a Board member, would you talk to the LPGA staff about it? Why not try and eliminate one source of member concern, since there is nothing you can do about the other inconveniences that hosting a tournament brings? All I am trying to do in my posts is explain what I think is the source of the complaints that led the LPGA to the decision that it made. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with it, but am certain it is real. The LPGA, dating back to Jan Stephenson and Laura Baugh, among others, has tried to leverage sex appeal to generate attention and, now, increased TV and social media exposure and viewership. So they probably don't want to turn that off, within reason. But they are not doing this because Mike Whan woke up one day and said our players are getting too much attention because of the way they are dressed. He is responding to pressure, and almost certainly that is coming from tour sponsors and the venues hosting events.

I am not sure, but think you missed my point. I am not talking about a club "that would turn away a professional player," but a club that would turn away a professional event. To begin with, conducting an event is often a controversial topic at a club. It costs a lot of money to hold an event and that money comes from the members. While hosting an event clearly brings some degree of prestige to a club, depending on the specific event, members lose access to the course for not only that week but often several weeks or more, in addition to potentially significant assessments. In extreme cases (like hosting a Ryder Cup), the PGA comes in a year in advance and basically takes over the club's operations. I have a friend who is a member at Hazeltine (host of the last Ryder Cup) and they got to play the 6 months preceding the event by dragging around a piece of synthetic turf and using it everywhere on the course except the greens. So my point was that you have a lot of members at many tour host events who are already predisposed to not like the fact that the event is there, and if they then see tour players in clothing that is considered unacceptable for members to wear...well, you get the point. If you really were talking about turning away a professional player who is just there for a day of golf, all I can say is that our club frequently has LPGA players (in addition to our former member), PGA and Champions Tour players at our course. While I haven't seen them all, I'm sure that the LPGA players wear clothes that are considered appropriate for a country club.

I am a new member here. I think I was the first one (post #57) who suggested this had less to do with what players were wearing on the course as it did with what they were wearing at sponsor events. I am not talking about the companies that sponsor player clothing/attire. I am talking about the companies that put up the millions of dollars to have their names associated with an event. Clearly, the inclusion of prohibited clothing such as cut offs, jeans with holes, and work out wear suggests those were being worn to such sponsor events, since they'd never be seen on a golf course. These are events, usually early in the week before the actual tournament starts, where the sponsors are entertaining clients, often from many culturally diverse world areas, who have an opportunity to meet and rub elbows at a social gathering/cocktail party/dinner party with players from the tour. If such clothing is/was being worn at these types of events, it is not surprising they would complain to LPGA officials. On the assumption that the LPGA doesn't want to have even less events here in the U.S. and certainly doesn't want to lose sponsors, it is not surprising this would come out at the mid-point of the current season since they are trying to finalize contracts and the schedule for next year and years to come. On the topic of on-course wear, and again this is just my opinion, let me throw it out. Most of the events on the schedule are held at very nice, high-end clubs. I am currently a member at such a club. Up until a few months ago, a very prominent member of the LPGA was a member at our club. I have also been a member at such clubs in the mid-west. My wife has said on several occasions, along with many of her friends, that there is "no way" the dress of some of the players would be allowed at our club. And I don't think our club is anywhere near as "stodgy" as some of the clubs I am familiar with on the east coast and in the mid-west. It is, quite simply, not considered appropriate country club attire. And yet, some LPGA players come to events hosted at those clubs wearing attire that the members themselves, who are often paying large amounts of money in dues and assessments, etc. to make their course "tour ready," wouldn't be allowed to wear. So I would not at all be surprised if that was the second source of complaints. Like it or not, but to me this is a simple exercise in following the money. The LPGA certainly isn't being run by a bunch of puritanical idiots. They are business people. And they are behaving just like any corporate business would behave. If the people who sponsor their events and who provide them with access to the best courses in the world complain loud and often enough, the LPGA is going to act, because not only are the salaries of the LPGA staff at risk, but so are the opportunities for players to make a living by playing events hosted by those sponsors and held at those elite venues.

My guess is that this has less to do with on-course dress and much more to do with what is worn at sponsor events. If players showed up at such events with cut-offs, jeans with holes, work-out clothes, etc., sponsors would rightly complain. The LPGA can't afford to lose more sponsors unless every event ends up is some world area other than the U.S. The LPGA probably figured they should kill two birds with one stone and also address on-course attire, since I'm sure that has generated some concerns as well (and if those complaints come from the people controlling the purse strings, the LPGA is obliged to respond or else say goodbye to the people paying the bills). This would also explain the seemingly odd timing since the LPGA is undoubtedly trying to wrap up next seasons' commitments.