dress code

[jamo]

1 hour ago, zipazoid said:

Only issue I have with any kind of dress code is the collared shirt thing. I get what they're essentially going for, and that's no tee-shirts. Okay, noted. Don't wear a tee with "I'm with Stupid" on it or whatever.

But collarless shirts can be quite stylish -

http://res.gdol.com/ap/p.php?a=wi&p=18843

So here I am, Sunday morning & I'm about to go to the course to practice. And as I'm picking out what shirt to wear, I'm consciously thinking, 'Make sure it has a damn collar.'

I'm with you. I have a lot of t-shirts that are either solid or just have a small logo, just like collared shirts have, that I wish I could wear on the golf course. They're not logo t-shirts or graphic t-shirts. They're just like the collared shirts I wear on the golf course but without the collar (which, I think, is why I like that style).  

[zipazoid]

And now you got the Rory 'blade collar' look - Sort of a collar, but not in the traditional sense -

 

 

 

So yes...I think golf needs to relax its dress code. 

Edited June 4, 2017 by zipazoid

[Moxie Dawn]

[Valleygolfer]

2 hours ago, Moxie Dawn said:

You need to delete your web history when you are done...

[David in FL]

8 hours ago, Moxie Dawn said:

Read more  

Yo Moxie, good to see you back too!  

[Kalnoky]

On 6/3/2017 at 6:17 AM, Zekez said:

But why does the "old" way have to be the "right" way?  In stead of terming them "irreverent slobs" how about terming them "casual dressers".  

Is it disrespectful to not tuck ones shirt in?  If so, why?

Yeah "slobs" probably reads offensively and I apologize.

I'm really not a hard a** and I'm certainly not trying to make anything "great again". I actually let my staff dress casually at work (and God knows some of them have taken that too far). But mostly I just see a lowering of standards across the board in America, and man that is really sad to me. Because there is something really cool about having propriety and decorum. I know my girls would disagree with me. But it just seems the more they try to make everything easier for people, the less they value it. 

[Apoc81]

I think well fitting athletic clothes should be allowed, and they basically are. I don't like the collar rule at most clubs either, but it is what it is, Not that I want to wear t-shirts, theres much more comfortable stuff that is just as classy. 

[ghalfaire]

On 6/4/2017 at 8:17 AM, Moxie Dawn said:

I just have no words for this other than I'd admit the shirts are collared. 

 

For whatever it's worth my opinion is Private courses should set whatever dress codes their members deems acceptable.  Public courses should have a code of wearing nothing offensive.  Of course the problem with that is who decides what is offensive. But there are some "norms" in the society of golfers for guidance.

[David in FL]

53 minutes ago, ghalfaire said:

I just have no words for this other than I'd admit the shirts are collared. 

 

For whatever it's worth my opinion is Private courses should set whatever dress codes their members deems acceptable.  Public courses should have a code of wearing nothing offensive.  Of course the problem with that is who decides what is offensive. But there are some "norms" in the society of golfers for guidance.

Why? 

 What's different about a "public" course?  All that means is that it accepts daily play for a fee from anyone who desires to play there, not just members.  Why shouldn't they set standards of dress and deportment if they want to?

[ghalfaire]

1 minute ago, David in FL said:

Why? 

 What's different about a "public" course?  All that means is that it accepts daily play for a fee from anyone who desires to play there, not just members.  Why shouldn't they set standards of dress and deportment if they want to?

I guess, for me anyway, if you take public money then the standards should accommodate "the public" (read taxpayer).  Maybe that isn't really different, just a much broader segment of society setting standard than with a private course.  But the management/owners of any course should be allowed to set the dress standards. 

[rehmwa]

5 minutes ago, ghalfaire said:

I guess, for me anyway, if you take public money then the standards should accommodate "the public" (read taxpayer).  Maybe that isn't really different, just a much broader segment of society setting standard than with a private course.  But the management/owners of any course should be allowed to set the dress standards. 

I think, then, that you meant to say a 'municipal' or 'city' courses rather than note 'public'.  Public just means a course is open to non-members even if privately owned. 

If a course uses tax monies, then I'd also argue for a very relaxed code.  or at least one defined through a public means (legislate, public vote, etc etc etc).  Because the taxpayers are the owners....

In this I'm consistent with my position that the owners of a property can do whatever they like however smart or stupid - and also have to deal with the consequences good or bad.

Edited June 6, 2017 by rehmwa

[David in FL]

10 minutes ago, ghalfaire said:

I guess, for me anyway, if you take public money then the standards should accommodate "the public" (read taxpayer).  Maybe that isn't really different, just a much broader segment of society setting standard than with a private course.  But the management/owners of any course should be allowed to set the dress standards. 

First, a LOT, probably most "public" courses are still privately owned, but are open to anyone who wants to play there.  

Second, assuming you're talking exclusively about the relatively few publicly owned courses, those that are actually owned and operated by a local municipality, I see no difference between a golf course, or any other facility that the town/city/county might operate.  They set standards of conduct and often dress at courthouses, town halls, parks, swimming pools, whatever.  Just because someone may indirectly contribute a miniscule amount of the annual operating budget to a facility through whatever taxes they may or may not pay, doesn't mean they have any more "ownership" to that course or facility than they would to any "privately owned" course.  This whole, "I pay taxes, so no one should be able to tell me that I can't do whatever the hell I want" just isn't the way it works in the real world.  Nor should it be. 

As always, if you or I want to frequent any establishment, we simply abide by their rules.  If we don't like their rules, we go somewhere that better meets our needs.  

34 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

I think, then, that you meant to say a 'municipal' or 'city' courses rather than note 'public'.  Public just means a course is open to non-members even if privately owned. 

If a course uses tax monies, then I'd also argue for a very relaxed code.  or at least one defined through a public means (legislate, public vote, etc etc etc).  Because the taxpayers are the owners....

In this I'm consistent with my position that the owners of a property can do whatever they like however smart or stupid - and also have to deal with the consequences good or bad.

Read more  

No.  The municipality is the owner.  The individual taxpayers are not.  That's why you last paragraph is relevant to this case too.  

[mcanadiens]

The Dayton, OH area actually has a lot of municipally-owned courses and it does vary quite a bit.

Damn near anything goes on my home courses which are owned and operated by the City of Dayton. But suburban Centerville's Yankee Trace does have a dress code policy right on the website that says: 

Dress Code (April 1st – October 31st)

To protect the rights and privileges of all persons at Yankee Trace, proper attire must be worn at all times on the golf course and on the practice facilities. Blue jeans, bathing attire, T-shirts, gym and tennis shorts, cut-off and short shirts, tank tops, halter tops and other similar dress are inappropriate. Bermuda length shorts, approximately 3 inches above the knee, are recommended. Collared shirts or mock necks are recommended. In order to provide the best playing surface possible, metal spiked shoes are prohibited.

Hell. Even Centerville's bloody gas stations have to have a brick facade. Fancy pants.

[rehmwa]

21 minutes ago, David in FL said:

 No.  The municipality is the owner.  The individual taxpayers are not.  That's why you last paragraph is relevant to this case too.  

<<Insert libertarian stock quote here>>

We'll have to agree to disagree here.  Legal isn't moral nor right, especially when the oppressed one doesn't get a say in how the system is written.  I'll stick with the philosophy of 'whoever gets their money stolen from them, SHOULD get a say in the rules of how it's spent'

(I'm not a fan anyway of tax dollars being hijacked for fluffery like a golf course - if it's viable, then the private market will take care of the demand.)

 

I played at a little 9 hole Iowa course when I was about 11.  I looked it up for the fun of it.  The website currently states that 'shirts are encouraged while in the clubhouse' 

14 minutes ago, mcanadiens said:

To protect the rights and privileges of all persons at Yankee Trace, proper attire (blah blah blah)

Is it something recent where, when stating a rule, that now people have to make a little intro speech?  This has no value added vs just starting at "proper attire must be worn......"

 

I'm harkening to the gender neutral restroom signs that have more 'speech' on them than actual identification text.  blowhards

Edited June 6, 2017 by rehmwa

[David in FL]

1 minute ago, rehmwa said:

<<Insert libertarian stock quote here>>

We'll have to agree to disagree here.  Legal isn't moral nor right, especially when the oppressed one doesn't get a say in how the system is written.  I'll stick with the philosophy of 'whoever gets their money stolen from them, SHOULD get a say in the rules of how it's spent'

(I'm not a fan anyway of tax dollars being hijacked for fluffery like a golf course - if it's viable, then the private market will take care of the demand.)

Read more  

Then vote out the elected municipality leaders that are spending money in a manner that you disagree with.  Unless the "oppressed one" isn't allowed to vote or campaign for office on his own platform, they get the same say as everyone else.  Just because more people don't agree with me, doesn't make me "oppressed".    

Along the same lines, you suggested that the only dress code you would support would be one that the taxpayers voted on.  Well, the voters voted for those that indirectly imposed any dress code in voting for those elected officials.  

Fwiw though, even a municipality owned golf course is often subject to the free market.  It's one of the reasons that they're becoming something of a disappearing breed these days, and if that's what the market decides, I'm ok with that too.  

[rehmwa]

Go full "Payne"......or GET OFF MY COURSE.  Ladies too.  In the bar and restaurant also....consarnit

1 - I see huge profits in the future.

2 - (((it really would be fun to show up as a foursome in outfits like this just for a round)))

Edited June 6, 2017 by rehmwa

[David in FL]

10 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

Go full "Payne"......or GET OFF MY COURSE.  Ladies too.  In the bar and restaurant also....consarnit

1 - I see huge profits in the future.

2 - (((it really would be fun to show up as a foursome in outfits like this just for a round)))

I'm in!

[Zekez]

On 6/2/2017 at 1:17 PM, No Mulligans said:

The dress code is already so lenient I can't believe anyone could have a problem with it.  A collared polo, not really any different than a tee shirt when in comes of function and comfort.  You can already wear short pants on most courses.  The dress code is really no big deal already.  If someone can't comply to such a simple and almost nonexistent dress code, then don't play golf if it's that big of deal to you.

Rather bizarre to not play a sport that you love because of the way one is forced to dress.