BuckeyeGolf

I don't agree with your premise that these clubs are places for business deals to be made by leaders at the exclusion of others. Perhaps they strike deals that benefit the marketplace and people of all backgrounds that work in those industries? Hcopenhagenh, your very astute at recognizing the threat to individual liberty. I'm glad you joined the debate.

We will never know if this vote would've surfaced if it were not for the attack forces outside the club. I believe that it would have remained the same given its 270+ year history. The vote to retain financial advantage as you put it was likely in response to the attack, and not an internal desire to amend the policy.

Spooky, your comments are spot on with the message I'm making regarding freedom being taken away. Muirfield has has hosted the Open 16 times, and then progressive activists come along that hate social norms, private interests, and individual liberties and attack a private club of several hundred members to change their policies or face consequences. The fans that showed up to watch Phil Mickelson win the '13 Open didn't appear to be outraged. The event was televised. Sponsors made their money. So back off progressive activists and leave these gentleman alone! Also, McIlroy's comment saying the policy is obscene was spineless. He played Muirfield in 2013, and did he speak out then? The Golf Channel panel was spineless too. They would likely suffer possible job less from the coercion of NBC progressives if they spoke on a principled basis. The question was asked... Would I seek to exclude others beyond this category? Well, I would not seek to exclude anyone. Please keep in mind that women do have access to Muirfield, but they can't become a members. The single gender policy has existed for over 270 years, and If I chose to join Muirfield, I would be made aware of that policy. I don't have any objections to a single-gender club, and I don't have objections to a mixed gender club. The issue is the freedom of association in a private organization. Let me ask you... do you object to girls not being admitted to the Boy Scouts and vice versa? Should a progressive activist swoop in and attack the Boy Scouts of America and force them to change their policy? When does this nonsense of violating peoples liberty end?

Spooky, your comments are spot on with the message I'm making regarding freedom being taken away. Muirfield has has hosted the Open 16 times, and then progressive activists come along that hate social norms, private interests, and individual liberties and attack a private club of several hundred members to change their policies or face consequences. The fans that showed up to watch Phil Mickelson win the '13 Open didn't appear to be outraged. The event was televised. Sponsors made their money. So back off progressive activists and leave these gentleman alone! Also, McIlroy's comment saying the policy is obscene was spineless. He played Muirfield in 2013, and did he speak out then? The Golf Channel panel was spineless too. They would likely suffer possible job less from the coercion of NBC progressives if they spoke on a principled basis. This discussion illustrates how easily citizens are willing to forgo their own liberties.

Spooky, your comments are spot on with the message I'm making regarding freedom being taken away. Muirfield has has hosted the Open 16 times, and then progressive activists come along that hate social norms, private interests, and individual liberties and attack a private club of several hundred members to change their policies or face consequences. The fans that showed up to watch Phil Mickelson win the '13 Open didn't appear to be outraged. The event was televised. Sponsors made their money. So back off progressive activists and leave these gentleman alone! Also, McIlroy's comment saying the policy is obscene was spineless. He played Muirfield in 2013, and did he speak out then? The Golf Channel panel was spineless too. They would likely suffer possible job less from the coercion of NBC progressives if they spoke on a principled basis.

I ask you, what prompted the vote? I don't believe for a minute that the members would have instigated this vote on their own. After all, they chose to pay large sums of money to be a member of Muirfield knowing the existing membership policies. Coercion from the outside prompted this vote. A small group of activists imposed their will on a private club who exercises freedom of association as their policy. If the vote was initiated by the members without R&A and corporate coercion, then freedom would be intact.

Wally Fairway, thanks for your comments, but I do not believe for a minute that there is widespread "public pressure" to force Muirfield to change its' member policy. I don't recall any protests during the 2013 Open Championship. Was there any boycotts? No, this is a simple case of a small number of activists imposing their will to take away the freedoms or choices of a private organization. Incidentally, Martha Burke, a militant feminist attacked Augusta National back in 2002, and since that time there have been only 3 female members admitted to the club out of 300. Is 3 enough, or should the Masters be cancelled or taken from Augusta? Again, the focus should be placed on the freedom of private interests.

Krupa, I agree that freedom is not a shield against criticism, so I will criticize the R&A for coercing Muirfield and its' members to change their private policies or face the loss of hosting the Open Championship. After all, R&A has been comfortable hosting the Open there 16 times before now. What has changed? Well, a few PC activist have imposed their will to negatively affect the freedom of others. In defense of freedom, it would be interesting if other clubs within the rota rose up and defended Muirfield's freedom by telling the R&A that they will not host the Open at their clubs unless they stop harassing Muirfield. Freedom is worth defending.

I like Rory, but I think he is misguided. The broader issue here is the loss of freedom. Muirfield is a private club. Women have access to the club to play golf, so it is not a harsh ban. What is wrong with Men or Women choosing to interact with their own gender in a private setting? I guess the Ladies Golf Club of Toronto will have to abandon their women-only membership policy.

After talking to a number of golfers over the years, it appears that our European friends hold dear the privilege to walk. I would say that there may be a resurgence in the interest of walking here in the U.S. when you consider architects such as Tom Doak and Coore & Crenshaw are gaining considerable notoriety for their walk-able golf course designs. Let's hope the tradition of walking is preserved for this great game!

By attitude, do you mean a player who is conscious of his pre-shot routine? - or they care about pace of play for the good of everyone else on the course?

I would submit to you that cart golf is not necessarily a faster pace of play. The efficiency of walking direct to your ball with your clubs at your side more than offsets the inefficiency of cart driving logistics. If a scratch golfer is by himself in a cart, and the walker is a high handicapper, then the walker would be a slower-paced player. I don't think age is an issue. Maybe as part of the management approach the course starters could remind the players to play "ready golf" and walk with "purpose".

For those of you who enjoy walking during your round of golf, I'm curious to know if an option to play a course that is "walking preferred" would be attractive to you. Consider a golf course where the policy would be that you should have a "compelling reason" to request a cart to play at that course, i.e. medical proof or some other convincing reason that requires the player to ride. Would you gravitate to that course because other players of similar interest play there? Would the good course conditions attract you because the cart wear and tear would be insignificant? Would the aesthetic conditions attract you because there would be minimal amounts of cart visual or noise distractions. Picture the pace of play being more balanced because a course dominated by walking golfers would posses a more "even flow" as opposed to carts that surge and stop on either side of you. Walkers or Riders, what are your thoughts?

You are not anti-social by choosing to walk. The cart golfers can be considered anti-social because quite often a better discussion can be had among players strolling down the fairway as opposed to jumping in and out of carts. Regarding pace, I recommend that you maintain a heightened awareness to stay ahead of other players in your group. First of all, a cart can't go any faster than a person on foot if there are pairings in front of you. When the last ball is struck off the tee take an aggressive stride down the fairway. I'm talking seconds after the last tee shot is made, make a break for your ball. Maintain a brisk walking pace until you reach your next shot. When balls are spread out on the fairway, walk ahead without creating any visual interference to other players preparing for their next shot. Your mindset should be to find anyway possible to keep walking. When you reach the green to putt, place your bag in alignment with the next tee ground. This cuts down on zig zag walking after the group's putts have concluded. If you maintain a conscious effort to stay aggressive with your pace of play, you will often stay well ahead of the cart golfers. If there are two people in a cart, then you should easily keep pace because they are having to manage the placement of their cart between two balls in the fairway while you walk straight to your ball. Usually cart golf leads to poor club selection because the driver leaves the other player before they've had a chance to assess their next shot. You know the routine--- "I need a different club, can you come back with the cart. I have a 7 iron and I need an 8. What a mess cart golf is. It pains me to think about riding. Keep on walking. and ask the cart golfers to be social with you as you walk the fairways.

Your premise that cart golf is a faster process than walking is a myth!! You suggest that a "busy schedule" influences you to ride. You simply choose to ride. You do raise an important distinction - recreation versus the sport of playing golf. Recreational golfers seek relaxation, and walking golfers tend to be more athletic or serious-minded about the game. As a walker, I would like to see a trend toward more walking-only golf courses. If you think about it, other sports offer the opportunity to separate recreational players from serious-minded players through leagues and other organizational formats. Golf is predominantly focused on recreational golf with cart riding being a dominant policy on our nation's courses. Even if you sign up for an amateur golf tour, often you will be forced to ride. Play like the pros - Walk!! You'll enjoy the benefits that walking the course has to offer.