Augusta National admits two female members

[ClayHbg]

Hahaha.  Agreed.

[Chas]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

I'm sure it was just to shut up hags like Martha Burk who wouldn't relent until Augusta admitted a female to their club.  Condi was a good choice, hopefully they did it because they wanted to and not because of the external pressures.

Quote:

Exactly.

And this is why I was wondering if the guys who run Augusta first got the opinion of members before making the decision.  Of course this is a matter that must have been widely discussed in the club for many years and they must have a pretty good idea how members feel, but did they take any sort of a vote or poll - however informal?  If not, I would expect that some members are not happy about the way the decision was made, regardless of outcome.

Not ever having been a member of a golf club I have no idea of how such decisions are made.  It will depend on the particular by-laws I suppose.

Me, I wouldn't join any club that would have me as a member ..... ;)

[WUTiger]

Originally Posted by Beachcomber

... I'm sure they needed to admit two ladies so that she wasn't playing as a single? (joke)

I thought they would admit maybe four all at once. At least they admitted more than one.

[LovinItAll]

Originally Posted by Spyder

The thing is though, is that in the case of Augusta.. it's not all about money. The "prestige cannot be bought". Most other country clubs around the country will accept you if your bank roll is large enough. According to Augusta and history, they don't care about your income. They claim you cannot buy an invitation.

However, being the realist that I am, I highly doubt that if someone were to say: "Here's $1,000,000... consider it a donation to the club. May I have a jacket and membership?", that the answer would be a firm "No.".

I thought they rejected Bill Gates the first time around? A million bucks to the likes of Augusta members is chicken scratch...like me peeling off a five.

Augusta doesn't need additional members and they don't need sponsors for the tournament - they proved that back in the M. Burke days. They have enough money inside the club to hold the tournament, pay the purse, and keep the course in perfect condition without any outside interference, and that includes television revenue if a broadcaster didn't bend to Augusta's demands. They don't encourage members to play frequently, and there's at least one member that was removed from the club for playing too often.

I wouldn't want to belong to a club that was proud to be all white, nor would I necessarily want to be the only white guy in a club that was all black/asian...whatever. I respect a private club's right to offer/restrict membership to whatever demographic they want, though. The world wants to watch The Master's, not the other way around. The Master's would be just as prestigious if there was no television coverage.

Half the membership could probably buy the joint.

[Spyder]

Originally Posted by LovinItAll

I thought they rejected Bill Gates the first time around? A million bucks to the likes of Augusta members is chicken scratch...like me peeling off a five.

Augusta doesn't need additional members and they don't need sponsors for the tournament - they proved that back in the M. Burke days. They have enough money inside the club to hold the tournament, pay the purse, and keep the course in perfect condition without any outside interference, and that includes television revenue if a broadcaster didn't bend to Augusta's demands. They don't encourage members to play frequently, and there's at least one member that was removed from the club for playing too often.

I wouldn't want to belong to a club that was proud to be all white, nor would I necessarily want to be the only white guy in a club that was all black/asian...whatever. I respect a private club's right to offer/restrict membership to whatever demographic they want, though. The world wants to watch The Master's, not the other way around. The Master's would be just as prestigious if there was no television coverage.

Half the membership could probably buy the

The Master's would not be anywhere near as prestigious without the television coverage. Regardless of the large amount of money that the coverage brings it, prestige comes from people seeing it. The world would not be sitting by waiting for people to Tweet updates after the round, or hoping that they know someone who went so they could get the scoop, or wait for ESPN to post updates. People, after a while, simply wouldn't care any more. Seeing something that we can't have is what creates that prestige and wow factor, such as seeing a Roles Royce Silver Ghost in a museum - but knowing you can never, ever have it. Future generations would not be recalling legendary shots that occurred in our lifetime, such as the Bubba Watson wedge to a victory. There would be no talk or recollection of the legends playing the game down the road and interest would die down dramatically.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by ClayHbg

Quote:

Originally Posted by bamagrad03

Quote:

Originally Posted by ClayHbg

If you can name a women's club with comparable money, prestige, and influence that Augusta has and you express a genuine desire to become a member, I guarantee people like Martha Burke would be happy to protest on your behalf.  It's not about taking things away from men, it's about granting equal opportunities to women.

This makes absolutely no sense. If it's SUUUUCH a horrible example of discrimination, then it doesn't matter on what scale it's done. Face it, you think it is OK to discriminate against men in this case, but not against women (because it's not a PC issue to make sure men are included).

By the way, from Curves website: "Curves has nearly 10,000 locations in over 85 countries."

I didn't create a straw man...I articulated a simple premise that it's OK for women to have a club where only women are allowed, but for some reason it's some bastion of bigotry and discrimination for men to have the same. The size or revenue generation of the club is immaterial as it relates to the concept of discrimination. If Augusta was so wrong to not allow women, than ANY club that disallows men, should be equally wrong, shouldn't it?

You want to be a Curves member?  That's cool.  I suggest you form a group and start protesting.  There are plenty of equality groups that would be happy to take up your cause.  But I'm guessing you merely want to argue, which is also fine.

Yes....that is a straw man argument because (in regards to Martha Burk/Augusta) no one was arguing the premise that all exclusive clubs should be banned because they are discriminatory.  If your club is TRULY private then you actually have a right to discriminate and Martha Burk herself stated that those clubs should be viewed differently than places such as Augusta.  The same applies to your private residence.  If you don't want white people in your house you have a right to disallow them from entering your home.   Like I said previously, if men, women, Whites, Blacks, Asians or Latinos want to have their own exclusive/private clubs it's fine by me.  That's their prerogative and no one is trying to prevent that.  If you want to sit in a room with a bunch of other men that's totally cool with me as well.  But when your club receives government money, tax benefits, or it is endorsed by companies that are funded by everyone's tax dollars then you have a different situation on your hands.

If that applies to Curves or any other establishment then I agree with you 100 percent.

Bamagrad is right - you're making no sense.  He never said he wanted to be a Curves member. He's fine with women-only clubs, just as he's fine with men-only clubs. I feel the same way.

And Augusta is indeed a private club by every definition of the word except apparently yours.

[SloverUT]

I agree with the sentiments that a guy's only bastion is becoming increasingly small while women only groups remain sacred.

For example, girls playing baseball instead of softball (But the opposite is not possible)

Girls playing football instead of volleyball (similar analogy as above)

Curves is a perfect example as well.

If a man wants to start a gentleman only golf course, why can't he?  It is his course and he can make his own decisions.  I truly feel like this was only a big deal because women weren't allowed and it gave them something to pioneer against.  It was one of the last strongholds that didn't equate to equal rights.  My problem with this is that Augusta is not a goverment run organization and therefore they can decide their own rules as long as they aren't illegal.

That said, I am glad women are finally being admitted as I believe golf is a sport is to be enjoyed by all.  But even if they did it on their own timeline I don't like how they were bullied into it by politcal correctness.

[Chas]

It is obvious that ClayHbg does not know the meaning of the word "private" in the present context.  No wonder he's confused.

Augusta is a private club, end of story.  To suggest otherwise, with whatever weasel words one chooses, is absurd.

[LovinItAll]

Originally Posted by Spyder

The Master's would not be anywhere near as prestigious without the television coverage. Regardless of the large amount of money that the coverage brings it, prestige comes from people seeing it. The world would not be sitting by waiting for people to Tweet updates after the round, or hoping that they know someone who went so they could get the scoop, or wait for ESPN to post updates. People, after a while, simply wouldn't care any more. Seeing something that we can't have is what creates that prestige and wow factor, such as seeing a Roles Royce Silver Ghost in a museum - but knowing you can never, ever have it. Future generations would not be recalling legendary shots that occurred in our lifetime, such as the Bubba Watson wedge to a victory. There would be no talk or recollection of the legends playing the game down the road and interest would die down dramatically.

It's the players and venue that make the event prestigous, not the audience. Golfers cared plenty about golf tournaments before television existed, and there are miraculaous shots from Augusta that are still being discussed, but for which there is no video.

It's all speculation, but those are my .02.

EDIT: You're clearly a younger guy. That's not a slight, but there are plenty of us around that remember when television sports coverage was not nearly as pervasive as it is today. Of course the casual fan would be lost with reduced coverage, but not many people here would 'forget' key moments in events whether they saw them live or not.

[9424tm]

I thought it was in poor taste that they were not being issued the green jacket, but instead a green apron.

[LovinItAll]

The Master's would not be anywhere near as prestigious without the television coverage. Regardless of the large amount of money that the coverage brings it, prestige comes from people seeing it. The world would not be sitting by waiting for people to Tweet updates after the round, or hoping that they know someone who went so they could get the scoop, or wait for ESPN to post updates. People, after a while, simply wouldn't care any more. Seeing something that we can't have is what creates that prestige and wow factor, such as seeing a Roles Royce Silver Ghost in a museum - but knowing you can never, ever have it. Future generations would not be recalling legendary shots that occurred in our lifetime, such as the Bubba Watson wedge to a victory. There would be no talk or recollection of the legends playing the game down the road and interest would die down dramatically.

Spider, I've been thinking about this since I wrote my first reply. I wanted to add a couple of things. - Growing up, there were only three NFL games shown on TV on Sundays. With the addition of MNF, the total was four per week. There was no ESPN. During MNF halftime, Howard Cosell would narrate highlights from the games that had not been broadcast. Since there was no ESPN, these little snippets from the games we didn't see we're all we had to look forward to if our team didn't get airtime that week. The Cosell segment was hugely popular. There are a zillion exceptional plays from those days that are replayed today, even though nobody saw the event on TV originally. Though I think there's zero chance of The Master's being dumped from TV, even if it were, it would still remain a major, players would still consider it a big deal to get an invite, and the golfing world would wait for highlights and updates the same way we waited for sports updates prior to ESPN and all of the additional coverage we're accustomed to seeing today. Back to Augusta: I think you may be having a difficult time fathoming the amount of money the members of Augusta control. I know it's hard for me to wrap my head around it. I can tick off just two members names that, together, have a net worth of almost a hundred BILLION dollars. With their 300 members, many being titans of industry, the club's members' net worth could easily exceed 300 BILLON dollars. That's $300,000,000,000. Not only can The Master's afford to never have a single sponsor and still televise the event, but if a network didn't want to pay to cover the Master's, Augusta members would have zero problem buying 40 hours of network coverage and just footing the bill themselves. Hell, Comcast paid G.E. about 13 billion total for a 51% stake in NBC. Augusta members could buy ALL THREE major TV networks and broadcast whatever they wanted (hypothetically, of course). Even though I think it's already the most prestigious tournament (an opinion), If the membership decided, they could make The Master's even more so. They could offer up a ridiculously large purse without leaving the club for the cash, and they will always make sure it's on TV, even if they have to buy a basic cable (or network) station to show it. The point is that the members of Augusta don't need anything, which is why the Martha Burke thing was such a joke. Nobody has leverage against those boys (and pair of gals). They can be as picky as they want about membership, sponsors, etc. Do I think it was 'right' to finally invite women? I don't think one way or another. There was never any playing discrimination at the club, and they even let at least one women's college team practice there. Man, can you imagine playing your practice rounds at Augusta? Is discrimination bad? Of course. Do women deserve the same opportunities as men in the workplace? For sure. Look, I have two daughters, and I'd be ready to go to war with them if I felt they were slighted due to gender. Does society treat women as equals right now? No, I don't think we're at that point across the board. I still resect the rights of private clubs to restrict their membership as they see fit. As a side note, I think the PGA removed or threatened to remove Shoal Creek as a venue for tournaments due to their 'whites only' membership condition. Shoal Creek didn't have the leverage that Augusta has, so they caved and admitted black members so that they could comply with the PGA's non-discrimination clause. Augusta isn't a PGA event - that's how much leverage they have, you can bet the PGA tried to make it an official event at some point - so they had no reason to comply with anything other than what their membership wanted.

[Spyder]

Originally Posted by LovinItAll

It's the players and venue that make the event prestigous, not the audience. Golfers cared plenty about golf tournaments before television existed, and there are miraculaous shots from Augusta that are still being discussed, but for which there is no video.

It's all speculation, but those are my .02.

EDIT: You're clearly a younger guy. That's not a slight, but there are plenty of us around that remember when television sports coverage was not nearly as pervasive as it is today. Of course the casual fan would be lost with reduced coverage, but not many people here would 'forget' key moments in events whether they saw them live or not.

What I'm saying is that it would obviously be a very prestigious event for the players, but it would not have that same value to fans of golf if we are not able to watch it. It would definitely still remain a major, but it would not have the vast amount of interest and talk surrounding it if we can't watch it on TV. This would be like saying that the Super Bowl would still be the Super Bowl if it wasn't broadcast on television.

I am very aware of how much income the members of Augusta hold, but that is irrelevant to The Masters as a major event because the club would be just fine without the members and vice-versa. One holds no bearing on the other in terms of income.

Times have changed and they've changed for a reason. This is no longer the 60s, 70s and 80s. Technology and interest in sports have changed dramatically. Whether for better or worse is going to be a personal opinion, but I believe it has changed for the better. The NFL has grown to the size that it is because of the media and the coverage. There's multiple NFL channels where you can watch every single game, every single touchdown/scoring drive from every single game, split screen with up to 8 games going at once, NFL.com streaming, ESPN coverage, etc.

When you say that many of us remember when sports coverage was not nearly as pervasive as it is today, that is also irrelevant because each sport has changed ten-fold since "back in the day". Coverage and media bring revenue, interest and demand. No coverage would obviously decline interest and demand. I left out revenue because sure, some billionaire could easily fork over some cash to Augusta... but is that realistic? I'm pretty sure it's not. No one would simply "purchase a cable network/station" to broadcast it. They have the power and money to do so, but that's never going to happen.

I'm not sure how this drifted into a debate of how prestigious The Masters would be without television coverage, but I can assure you that it would decline in interest when it comes to the fans if it weren't broadcast.

[ClayHbg]

Originally Posted by Chas

It is obvious that ClayHbg does not know the meaning of the word "private" in the present context.  No wonder he's confused.

Augusta is a private club, end of story.  To suggest otherwise, with whatever weasel words one chooses, is absurd.

Those tricky weasel words that cause you to read (or in your case re-read),comprehend, and think......they're so weaselly!

I've never once suggested in any way that Augusta wasn't a private club.  I merely said that, although they are private, they are held to a higher standard because of the monetary support they get from companies that receive public/government support and benefits.  I also gave examples of other private institutions and how those same standards don't apply for the exact same reasons.  It's fine to disagree, but I don't think I'm the one who's confused here.

I know it's tricky but try stay with us.

[bamagrad03]

Originally Posted by ClayHbg

Those tricky weasel words that cause you to read (or in your case re-read),comprehend, and think......they're so weaselly!

I've never once suggested in any way that Augusta wasn't a private club.  I merely said that, although they are private, they are held to a higher standard because of the monetary support they get from companies that receive public/government support and benefits.  I also gave examples of other private institutions and how those same standards don't apply for the exact same reasons.  It's fine to disagree, but I don't think I'm the one who's confused here.

I know it's tricky but try stay with us.

But they aren't held to a higher standard because of sponsor dollars. They're held to a higher standard because we live in an overly-political correct world that has decided EVERYONE must be included in EVERYTHING, unless your club is exclusive to a protected group - then it's OK.

If Augusta was an all women golf club that regularly held LPGA events - but no men members - there wouldn't have been a single protest, a single story on ESPN, and not a single golfer would be asked to give their opinion on how "great it is for the sport" that they allowed their first male member.

We've decided that common sense must no longer be applied. All must yield to the forces of political correctness, whether it is logical or not.

[ClayHbg]

Originally Posted by bamagrad03

But they aren't held to a higher standard because of sponsor dollars. They're held to a higher standard because we live in an overly-political correct world that has decided EVERYONE must be included in EVERYTHING, unless your club is exclusive to a protected group - then it's OK.

I don't know about that, but we can agree to disagree on why Augusta was the club being targeted.  I could definitley be wrong on this one (and I know many R&A; clubs exclude women), but I don't think the PGA holds tournaments at any other all-male clubs.

Originally Posted by bamagrad03

If Augusta was an all women golf club that regularly held LPGA events - but no men members - there wouldn't have been a single protest, a single story on ESPN, and not a single golfer would be asked to give their opinion on how "great it is for the sport" that they allowed their first male member.

We've decided that common sense must no longer be applied. All must yield to the forces of political correctness, whether it is logical or not.

I definitely see your argument.  It's a good one.  I don't necessarily agree with your premise here (considering that's a pretty big IF) but I hear your argument.  It's a good debate to have.  Coming from the South I happen to appreciate political correctness, but that's just me.  Does the LPGA hold tournaments are all-female clubs?  If so then I'd have huge problem with that as well.

[bamagrad03]

Quote:

Does the LPGA hold tournaments are all-female clubs?  If so then I'd have huge problem with that as well.

Why?

[ClayHbg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bamagrad03

Quote:

Does the LPGA hold tournaments are all-female clubs?  If so then I'd have huge problem with that as well.

Why?

Why? Consistency.  For the same reason I felt the PGA shouldn't be holding tournaments at clubs that exclude women.  It's perfectly legal for a private clubs to exclude Whites or minorities (and there are many clubs that still do) but I'd say the same thing if the PGA held tourneys there.

[Spyder]

You guys are debating an endless debate now. This is is going to get to the point where people say "But there's a BET and NAACP. Why don't the white people have WET and stuff!?!?". No offense to anyone, obviously, but it's a pointless debate and makes no sense.

Who cares... let women into Augusta. How many of you that are so upset about this actually have a membership at the club? How many of you will ever have one? How does the admission of a woman into Augusta impact your daily life?

The LPGA wouldn't allow men because men would dominate it. There are no successful women golfers that play in the PGA Tour regularly to compete with the men either. Case closed!