Potential Masters Scandal

Here's a link to an article bringing back memories of Shoal Creek. After the Shoal Creek incident, the PGA Tour lost Cypress Point and Butler National as tournament venues. (Which was OK IMO.) This problem could really hurt the Masters and put the PGA Tour in a bind. The person who says the Masters could be played somewhere else just doesn't get it. But it is apparent that the current Chairman at Augusta has difficulty getting it too. (See his ham-handed letter to Doug Ford) I mean, you can't be confirmed for an office if you belong to a club that discriminates now. The pressure put on the sponsors will speak loud and clear.


Of course, if one player (Tiger) took a stand, things would change instantly at Augusta. But given the stature of the Masters, it is hard for any player to take a stand.


As for me, I like the form of discrimination practiced at Champions in Houston. (See article in recent Golf Digest.) You don't get in unless you have less than a 15 handicap. You don't get in if you are so uncouth as to ask where the swimming pool and tennis courts are. Once accepted, it is very cheap for a club of its quality and stature. They even put in a women's locker room. No it's not as nice as the palatial men's locker room, but it is light years ahead of Augusta.

do not ask hootie for a tee time...you've been banned at augusta national...hey he did invite the lady cocks golf team to play...lol..gl

It's a shame that men's clubs have to suffer such prejudices. There aught to be a law.


Tom D

Sorry John, but this is a nothing story IMO. That bag at USA Today brings it up every year. No one cares, least of all Eldrick, but even if he did, The Klansmen would run his Cablinasian ass off before you could say Jack Robinson. Jack & Arnie, too.


They'll continue to hold the event, and won't lack for sponsors or media coverage. Most people understand what private club means. Plus, it's all about the ratings.


The Masters not tied at the hip to Augusta National, now THAT'S the funniest f***** thing I've heard, like, ever. I s'pose The Championships aren't tied to Wimbledon, either. /images/smile.gif How do these people expect to be taken seriously when they don't even understand the basic issues?


BTW FWIW there'll be a token gal member w/i 5-10 years.

"Most people understand what private club means."


I'm not so sure anymore. In a lot of places, clubs are being denied liquor licenses and stuff if they discriminate. The other problem is that the Masters has outgrown the idea of a private club in some ways. The Masters has many quaint traditions that only a private club could pull off. But now the Masters is going away from that a bit with merchandise sales, more TV, and ending some of the old stuff. Augusta profits greatly from the Masters. And of course, the Masters can't exist separate from the club at Augusta. Really private clubs don't allow tournaments except for a US Open or Walker Cup or something once in a while and don't market their logo. Augusta used to be less commercial than it has become in the last few years. Augusta is an unusual club because of its national as opposed to local membership. Pretty soon, the type of people who are asked to join will not be able to join clubs that exclude members on the basis of gender because of what it will do to their businesses. That is what will change the policy. But Hootie responded like an idiot. He did not respond like somebody who runs a very private and distinguished club. Clifford Roberts and Bob Jones would have taken a much different tone. Hootie needs an assistant to dope slap him before he makes decisions and write his copy. He is the one who will make the scandal worse here.

What a "Lady Cock" is. You can't make USC's mascot gender neutral, so why make it worse? I need to wear my Gamecocks hat more.

Controversy would be better. Scandal implies something illegal or covered up, neither which happened here.

"The person who says the Masters could be played somewhere else just doesn't get it."


All right, I'll bite, what don't I get? The Dodgers played at Ebbets Field for a long time and New Yorkers thought the sky would fall when they moved to the left coast and it didn't. There are plenty of beautiful golf courses that don't have "quaint" membership rules, that don't have Hootie types (or people named Hootie) who make fools of themselves in public, that are in far lovelier places, figuratively and literally, than Augusta, GA.


The U.S. Open was spectacular this year, played on a public course where women and blacks don't have to beg for tee times or memberships. Trevino used to avoid the Masters, claiming the course didn't suit his game, but even when he played there he dressed and undressed in the parking lot because he knew what kind of people he was dealing with.


One suspects the biggest names in golf have always liked exclusive clubs that didn't give a damn what other people felt about their membership policies. Tiger ought to step up and say that he won't play at a club that still discriminates against women and considers them uppity when they have the audacity to comment on it, that unless they have women members by the time of the next Masters, he won't play. He ought to talk Mickelson, Duvall, Sergio and a few others to go along with it with him and we'd then see what kind of tournament the Masters would be.


Won't happen, of course.

It will not be the Masters if it moves from Augusta. It can't be done anyway. The membership would simply cancel the tournament and forbid the use of the name before moving it. If that happens, the Players' Championship would be declared the 4th major by someone. There's simply too much history wrapped up in the tournament and the course for it to exist somewhere else. The tournament could be destroyed, and Hootie seems to be trying to do that on multiple fronts. The Masters isn't the championship of anything. It isn't sactioned by any governing body in golf. It got its reputation for being the best tournament at a great venue at the same time every year. I'm not explaining it well, but the Masters is just qualitatively different from the US Open or Open Championship and that's what made it a major on equal footing with those 2 and ahead of the PGA now.


As for me, if you waved a magic wand on me and gave me golf talent, the Masters would be my 3d pick of majors to win, and would be 4th if the PGA reverted to match play. I would want to win the US Open first, because it is the hardest to win and is my national championship. I would want to win the Open Championship because it is the oldest and is the world tournament, and is the purest golf of the majors. The PGA is the sweater sales and lessons championship at stroke play, but would be unique at match play and would be the championship of those holding themselves out as professionals kind of. I am no Masters apologist, and think I would probably be offended at a lot of their conduct if I saw it up close. I read an anecdote this year about the treatment of caddies at Augusta that would prevent me from playing there if I knew it to be true and the responsible people were still connected to the club. But there's just no way you can separate the Masters from Augusta with all that word implies, from the beautiful flowers to cheap pimento cheese sandwiches in green wrappers to the bad interviews in Butler Cabin to the Champion's dinner to the fast greens and crystal for eagles. You can't do that down the road on some new Pete Dye course, no matter how good it is.

Clubs, by definition, are exclusive. The reason Augusta National doesn’t allow women to join is because Augusta National doesn’t want them to. Should Irish clubs be forced to admit Iranians? Should girl’s sports clubs be forced to admit boys?


I don’t understand where you’re coming from, at all. Don’t you see the irony of the National Council of Women's Organizations whining about the existence of men’s clubs? Their audacity astounds me.


Tom D

"National Council of Women's Organizations whining about the existence of men’s clubs?"


felt like i was losin my balls i.e. golf balls.

My brother belongs to a local Portugese-American club, and most of the members, I assume, are Americans, but Portugese ancestry is hardly a requirement. In fact, according to my brother, the only requirement seems to be that you merely show up with someone, and, presto, you're a member. He also said it helps if you like goat meat.


John

I think you explained it very well and I think it doesn't mean jack to the future of golf. The sanctity of Augusta and the Masters doesn't mean anything to anyone younger than you and I. If they started a 4th major, or started considering the Memorial or the Players Championship the 4th major, within a few years the Masters would be a thing of memory, like Ebbets Field.


BTW, I remember when Charlie Sifford won the L.A. Open and the Masters refused to give him an invitation because he was black. It was 50-50 they were going to invite Lee Elder when he won, if memory serves. I also think one of the reasons Trevino changed in the parking lot was either the way they treated his caddie or that they wouldn't let him use him there because he was black.


Yeah, it's a pretty place with miniature golf like putting greens and two par fives on the back nine that Tiger reaches with 8 irons. Big deal.

I don't have a problem with private clubs having any rules they want. I do have a problem with the PGA having a tournament there. Let Augusta National keep whatever exclusive, racist, biogted, sexist rules they want, just don't have a PGA tournament there.


And the state ought not to give them a liquor license.

This is the point a lot of people miss. It counts towards money won & tourneys played, but it is not a PGA tournament anymore than the British Open or US Open are.


Tim Finchem has less than nothing to do w/it. He could take the high road and say that it no longer counts until they let women in. He'd be fired immediately, of course. Besides, ya think Tim's gonna give up the week of corporate shmoozing, plus whatever gravy specks and secondhand reflected glory Hootie tosses him?


As far as young people not caring about The Masters, that's dead wrong, IMO. Everything is so phony, manufactured, & micromanaged these days that people yearn for anything w/the slightest hint of authenticity.


Take Aerosmith. Please. They certainly weren't considered any type of HOF band back when I was in high[!] school[79-83]. Strictly on Bad Co's level, well below Beatles/Stones/Zep/Floyd/Who/Hendrix. Although I do love Toys/Rocks/Line, NTM BC's first five albums.


Christ, I fucking hate getting old.... /images/frown.gif


"So much stuff w/o substance, so much stuff w/o style, its hard to recognize the real thing, it comes around once in awhile..." - Rush

But you do have a problem with "private clubs having any rules they want". That’s the whole point. You want to starve out of existence any organization that doesn’t conform to your particular moral principles. Do you really think the state "ought not" (implies moral duty) give Augusta National a liquor license? Do you really think you want the liquor board legislating morality? If you do, then why not have the state revoke the members’ drivers’ licenses and pass laws forbidding them to buy food? Why not freeze their bank accounts and take their money? Why not take their gold fillings? Equal protection under the law “ought not” be available to everyone.


You reject freedom and embrace tyranny.


Tom D

I do not have a problem with private clubs having any rules they want. I do not want to starve out of existence any club that does not conform to my particular moral principles. If serving liquor requires a license granted by the state, then the same rules should apply to all institutions, public and private. I assume the state will not give a liquor license to a restaurant that refuses to serve women or blacks. It should not then give a liquor license to a private club that does the same. I did not use the phrase "ought not" to convey moral duty.


The club as an institution serves liquor. It's members gold fillings or driver's liceneses have nothing to do with the club.


Equal protection under the law should be available to everyone.

i dont understand, other than as a revenue producing shakedown, why a business needs a liquor license in the first place.


ive heard that the term 'license' means the state is giving permission for something that is illegal. not sure exactly what that means or if it is even true, but i dont see how serving alcohol is illegal.


on the other hand any corporation is, supposedly, as a condition of its creation, supposed to serve the public interest.


brad