Thoughts on Rickie Fowler and The Masters' tradition?

[zeg]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

You can't tell what I'm saying yet you seem to understand exactly what I'm saying.

I quit.

You know, I was honestly trying to figure it out and not be an Internet jerk about it.  But if you quit, fine.  In case you didn't really quit, let me explain:

[sean_miller]

You can turn my comment into whatever you want if it makes you happy. Earl claimed the place didn't discriminate, then goes on to describe what they do, which is just one way to define discrimination. I found that ironic. Earl possibly didn't understand the meaning of the word, or he chose not to rock the Tiger's gonna be a gazillionaire boat. Earl's thoughts on discrimination in this particular instance are so biased as to be irrelevant.

I'm not saying in this case discrimination is even a bad thing. That's the thing about private clubs. You can invite who you want. As long as they're not accepting public money or getting tax breaks, how they decide who gets in is up to them.

Originally Posted by zeg

You know, I was honestly trying to figure it out and not be an Internet jerk about it.  But if you quit, fine.  In case you didn't really quit, let me explain:

The italicized part refers to your overall message.  I'm not accusing you of anything, just expressing that I do not understand what your main point is.  The bolded part is not at all discordant with that.  It is an example of why I don't understand your main point: it's an example of something that you wrote that seems self-contradictory.  The last part, after the bold, is my attempt to explain my understanding of the E. Woods quote in my understanding of how you're using the word "discrimination."

So I understand what your words say, and I understand your sentences, but I don't see how they add up to the conclusion that his post is "irrelevant" or "ironic," since my best effort to interpret them leads to the conclusion that you're saying the same thing.

[newtogolf]

Originally Posted by burtonda

First, I never said they refused to admit anyone.  No one applies for membership because it's by invite-only.  Second, how far does your head have to be in the sand to think that this good ol' boys club is not discriminatory?

Augusta National isn't the only private invatation only club.  There are quite a few, Druid Hills, Outpost Club, Thorny Lea are just a few and some are ladies only as well.  Doesn't seem any of the pro golfers have an issue with it.

[burtonda]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Augusta National isn't the only private invatation only club.  There are quite a few, Druid Hills, Outpost Club, Thorny Lea are just a few and some are ladies only as well.  Doesn't seem any of the pro golfers have an issue with it.

So you're justifying a negative with other seemingly negative examples?  Of course pro golfers have no problem with it given the huge monetary incentives.  I have no problem at all with private clubs or their membership ranks.  I think it's wrong when these legally discriminatory private clubs profit from the general public (via huge TV contracts and public exposure) and pretend like everyone should be cool with that.  To me that's lame, but whatever floats your boat I guess.

[Shindig]

Originally Posted by max power

Really?  Are there any female members?

The presence or lack of female members doesn't indicate discrimination by sex.  And, by the way, they don't announce their membership, so other than a truncated list that was leaked eight years ago, we don't know who is or isn't in the club.  And Condi Rice, a woman, has been seen plenty around the club, leading to rumors that she is a member.

Originally Posted by burtonda

First, I never said they refused to admit anyone.  No one applies for membership because it's by invite-only.  Second, how far does your head have to be in the sand to think that this good ol' boys club is not discriminatory?  They didn't invite their first African American until 1990 and that was only after another course hosting a PGA tournament had to change it's membership policies for the same reason.  They say that their club is private 51 weeks of the year and public only for the Masters - that is, they claim they are completely separate entities and Augusta National answers to no one. This should come as no surprise as many of their members work or worked for the too-big-to-fail companies that got a bunch of bailout money.  Since you're so into citations, here's an article with some of the facts, I'm sure you can google more: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/golf/masters/2002-09-27-augusta_x.htm

I've seen no evidence of their allegedly discriminatory nature;  I guess I'm not very quick to accuse someone of something horrible.

Your article only showcases nearly decade-old accusations by a noted publicity hound.  Furthermore, it discusses the frequency (high) that women play at Augusta.  You're also trying to tie a correlation to a causation:  Augusta invited a prominent television executive to join.  You make it sound like they went seeking someone for the color of his skin.

Originally Posted by burtonda

So you're justifying a negative with other seemingly negative examples?  Of course pro golfers have no problem with it given the huge monetary incentives.  I have no problem at all with private clubs or their membership ranks.  I think it's wrong when these legally discriminatory private clubs profit from the general public (via huge TV contracts and public exposure) and pretend like everyone should be cool with that.  To me that's lame, but whatever floats your boat I guess.

So, your assertion is that if the Masters got rid of the prize money, no one would play?

Serious consideration:  if Augusta reduced the purse by 18% (winner's share), and declared the winner would not get paid, do you think it would change in the slightest how many people show up to play, or how many attempt to win?

Another item:  the TV contract isn't actually that huge.  CBS pays very little, considering the ratings the program gets.  They sell very little advertising - four minutes per hour, far less than anything else they broadcast.  And unlike many of the resort courses that the professionals play each year, there's no benefit to their public exposure in terms of guest revenue:  they don't sell more tickets the next year and people don't fly in from across the country to spend their vacation playing Augusta National.  This isn't like TPC Sawgrass or Turning Stone Resort that host a tournament to attract people to golf vacations.

[burtonda]

Originally Posted by Shindig

The presence or lack of female members doesn't indicate discrimination by sex.  And, by the way, they don't announce their membership, so other than a truncated list that was leaked eight years ago, we don't know who is or isn't in the club.  And Condi Rice, a woman, has been seen plenty around the club, leading to rumors that she is a member.

I've seen no evidence of their allegedly discriminatory nature;  I guess I'm not very quick to accuse someone of something horrible.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree as my mind can't process the contradiction in your first sentence, given that the club is invite-only.  Again, I have nothing against private clubs and their right to select their membership by whatever criteria they desire.  My concern is that the premier event in a professional American sport takes place at a club with, at best, questionable membership policies regardless of whether it's public or private.

[max power]

Don't bring this argument before a debate team or a moot court judge.  I guess we'll agree to disagree.  Whether they have the right to discriminate or not, I find it hard to believe there wouldn't be at least a handful of wealthy women who would be members if Augusta didn't discriminate.

Originally Posted by Shindig

The presence or lack of female members doesn't indicate discrimination by sex.  And, by the way, they don't announce their membership, so other than a truncated list that was leaked eight years ago, we don't know who is or isn't in the club.  And Condi Rice, a woman, has been seen plenty around the club, leading to rumors that she is a member.

[Shindig]

Originally Posted by burtonda

We're just going to have to agree to disagree as my mind can't process the contradiction in your first sentence, given that the club is invite-only.  Again, I have nothing against private clubs and their right to select their membership by whatever criteria they desire.  My concern is that the premier event in a professional American sport takes place at a club with, at best, questionable membership policies regardless of whether it's public or private.

The first sentence (for context of those reading), was that the absence of female members doesn't mean there is discrimination.  Let me explain:  I've never dated a middle-eastern woman.  Does this mean I discriminate against them in my dating?  I don't think I've ever even asked one out on a date.

Originally Posted by max power

Don't bring this argument before a debate team or a moot court judge.  I guess we'll agree to disagree.  Whether they have the right to discriminate or not, I find it hard to believe there wouldn't be at least a handful of wealthy women who would be members if Augusta didn't discriminate.

Well, I'm not a lawyer nor law student, so I haven't to worry about moot court.  I repeat that you don't know that there aren't women members;  we know only what was published seven years ago, and are only taking the word of those publishing the list that it is accurate (would it be hard to believe if the person leaking the membership list omitted female members?  I'm not saying it happened, of course).  Even if it was accurate at the time, that was seven years ago.

Most of those who we do know as members are influential people who otherwise keep a rather low profile.  For example, I would have difficulty believing it if the list included Richard Branson or Rush Limbaugh;  both, while influential, keep a very high profile.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by Shindig

The first sentence (for context of those reading), was that the absence of female members doesn't mean there is discrimination.  Let me explain:  I've never dated a middle-eastern woman.  Does this mean I discriminate against them in my dating?  I don't think I've ever even asked one out on a date.

Umm . . . yes?

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by max power

Don't bring this argument before a debate team or a moot court judge.  I guess we'll agree to disagree.  Whether they have the right to discriminate or not, I find it hard to believe there wouldn't be at least a handful of wealthy women who would be members if Augusta didn't discriminate.

On the contrary, I would be surprised if ANY women would want to be a member of a club that is so traditionally male dominated and, if you like, chauvanistic.

It would be like a man demanding to join a women only gym. Why would they want to, other than to make a point?  It wouldn't be a very comfortable place to be.  And that would outweigh any of the advantage that would make a male want to join there.  They would not be made to feel welcome by a lot of the membership. Why bother?

[burtonda]

Originally Posted by Shorty

On the contrary, I would be surprised if ANY women would want to be a member of a club that is so traditionally male dominated and, if you like, chauvanistic.

It would be like a man demanding to join a women only gym. Why would they want to, other than to make a point?  It wouldn't be a very comfortable place to be.  And that would outweigh any of the advantage that would make a male want to join there.  They would not be made to feel welcome by a lot of the membership. Why bother?

Not a bad argument, except that the women who would get an invite to the club are just as power hungry as the men who get invited.  They would jump at the chance for that status symbol and notch in their belt.

[Bigtank]

Originally Posted by The Recreational Golfer

I would say the above in regard to the a**hole who took off Fowler's cap.

The security guards at Augusta, I've heard and read, are nothing short of thugs. I guess they get their direction from the top.

Disgraceful.

Again....this is someone making a judgement on hear say and mis-information.

They did not remove Fowler's hat, they asked him to wear his hat according to their dress code.  Based on my 20+ years off attendance of the tournament and its functions, the members of security have ALWAYS been kind and respectful to me and all members of my party.

silly!

[Tiger Spuds]

I think it was inappropriate for the official at the press conference to physically grab Fowler's hat and turn it around as if he were a child, instead of just asking him to do it himself. The Official might feel that wearing your hat backwards there is disrespectful, but it's equally disrespectful to Fowler to treat him like a child instead of politely requesting that he turn his hat around. I'm sure Rickie Fowler's loud and brash style, in particular, was always going to get under the skin of those at Augusta, and you get the feeling that were just waiting for a chance to pull him up on something. I respect the history and traditions of golf, but lets face it, 'traditions' in this case means 'rules', i.e. more things you're not allowed to do, and many of them are petty and needless. It gets tiresome when they go overboard on it, and no one goes overboard like the Dinosaurs at Augusta. They do nothing to help change the old, unpopular view of Golf being pretentious and stuffy. Golf is a great game, traditions or not and The Masters is one tournament that still needs to be relax those 'traditions' ever so slightly.

[Shindig]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Umm . . . yes?

I think the point I was trying to make got lost in there.  If my thought process was "I won't ask her out because she's (ethnic group)," it would be discrimination.  The fact of the matter is that all the ones I know either have a relationship or don't have much in common with me.  They end up being girls I wouldn't ask out regardless;  ancestry doesn't play into the thought process.  It's a correlation, not a causation.

I think it's similar with Augusta.  ANGC has very few female members, but most of these members are current or retired chief executives -- within Fortune 1000 companies, there are a total of 25 female CEOs.   Most of these companies aren't at the level of influence that would get the attention of ANGC.  There's a certain type of person they're looking for, and in the recent past, most of the people who fit this are male.  Is this because of past gender inequality?  Absolutely.  Is it the fault of Augusta National?  Absolutely not.

[bplewis24]

Just curious as to your thoughts on this article: http://sports.yahoo.com/golf/blog/devil_ball_golf/post/Rickie-Fowler-gets-a-lesson-in-Augusta-National-?urn=golf-wp563

I'm not sure what to think. I know the Masters has a tradition there that they try extremely hard to live up too, but on the other hand, it isn't like turning a hat around backwards is doing something to tarnish that tradition.

Actually it does nothing to diminish how I perceive the powers-at-be at Augusta National. I couldn't really think much lower of them, and this is just further validation. Brandon

[bplewis24]

I think it was inappropriate for the official at the press conference to physically grab Fowler's hat and turn it around as if he were a child, instead of just asking him to do it himself. The Official might feel that wearing your hat backwards there is disrespectful, but it's equally disrespectful to Fowler to treat him like a child instead of politely requesting that he turn his hat around. I'm sure Rickie Fowler's loud and brash style, in particular, was always going to get under the skin of those at Augusta, and you get the feeling that were just waiting for a chance to pull him up on something. I respect the history and traditions of golf, but lets face it, 'traditions' in this case means 'rules', i.e. more things you're not allowed to do, and many of them are petty and needless. It gets tiresome when they go overboard on it, and no one goes overboard like the Dinosaurs at Augusta. They do nothing to help change the old, unpopular view of Golf being pretentious and stuffy. Golf is a great game, traditions or not and The Masters is one tournament that still needs to be relax those 'traditions' ever so slightly.

Well said.

[Fatgigi]

Well said

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Gotta say I love it.  These kids sometimes need to learn that although the world may be their oyster, Augusta National is a world apart.  Maybe it's just a lesson in growing up - sometimes you simply have to go along with rules you may not agree with.  Just about everyone discovers this at one time or another in their lives.

[burtonda]

Originally Posted by Fatgigi

Well said

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Gotta say I love it.  These kids sometimes need to learn that although the world may be their oyster, Augusta National is a world apart.  Maybe it's just a lesson in growing up - sometimes you simply have to go along with rules you may not agree with.  Just about everyone discovers this at one time or another in their lives.

I was taught to keep my hands to myself when I was a kid.  Apparently the Augusta official never learned this.  Just about everyone discovers this at one time or another in their lives.