Enough writes:
You can disagree, but the thought that people like you and me know more (or as much) about the matter or have better judgment than the R&A and USGA is laughable.While I disagree with some technology issues with Geoff, I'd back him in a trivial pursuit of golf against anyone working in Far Hills. Geoff has one advantage over anyone within the USGA, he has never been afraid to state his opinion. I'd rather read a judgment that I disagree with backed up by the person making the judgment, than one I agree with made in secret.
You can believe you don't know enough to have an opinion, but you are assessing Geoff's knowledge and judgment based on what?
Some of these have already been answered, but I hate to see all my typing go to waste.
Geoff_Shackleford writes:
1) How come the USGA dropped the optimization ball test to replace Iron Byron?This is the first I've heard of the optimization test being terminated. I sent email to the USGA, but they take 20-30 days to respond to email. It does bother me when they previously announced they would convert to the optimization test and then go mum on what happened to it.
2) Did every ball fail under this new test?I would hope a bit more testing went into it prior to the announcement. But I'm sure any sort of meaningful optimization test would result in some current balls failing.
3) If the USGA is smarter than everyone else, how come they thought that testing golf balls with a persimmon driver at 109 mph would actually reflect the current version of golf?They lack the financial resources in the technology department of any of the major ball manufacturers, so are always left responding to moves made by the manufacturers. I was under the impression they were admitting they were slow to retire Iron Byron, and I'm very disappointed to hear that it is still in use.
One thing I like about the USGA is that they don't rush to respond to the latest problem. They take their time, study the issue, and then come up with a well developed plan. Obviously this system has its drawbacks on issues that can change very quickly. But at least we don't end up with anything like the U.S. Congress.
4) If the USGA and R and A have such a great "sense" for the sport, how come they have never been held in lower regard?Can't speak for the R&A, but I'm thinking they were held on lower regard when they took away Francis Ouimet's amateur status. Maybe not by as many people, but by a larger percentage of golfers.
5) If the USGA has such a great sense for golf, how come they can't set up a golf course without doing something horribly wrong at least once a year!?I like that the USGA pushes the envelope. If players are complaining I'm happy. I think at least one major should put a premium on attitude, and I think the U.S. Open does that better than any other tournament. I'm never 100 percent happy with their running of the U.S. Open, but I'd still rather watch that than any other tournament -- unless there is really bad weather at the Open Championship.
6) If the USGA cares about golf, why have they allowed the equipment companies to dictate how golf is played? A fast moving cycle of unregulated equipment in the last five years has translated into a higher cost to play thanks to longer courses, the need for competitive (or hoping to be competitive) golfers to play with the latest equipment/ball to keep up. It all means more expense in a sport that is already too expensive for most, particularly the inner-city kids they like to show us in their ads. Latest equipment hasn't resulted in longer courses. Most of the equipment has been developed to make the game easier for the golfing public. A manufacturer will quickly go broke designing equipment just for the top-end golfer. Just like the Haskell ball and steel shafts were intended to appeal to the golfing public, the top golfers eventually discovered ways to take advantage of the new advances.
Courses lengthening for the very small percentage of golfers who aren't challenged on their courses are stupid. Now that the economy is in the tank, many of these stupid courses are going to be in a heck of a lot of trouble. I'm in favor of the USGA working on real problems not perceived problems.
JohnV writes:
I'm sure that Optimization was a better idea in theory. As you said, nobody knows why it was dropped except the folks at Far Hills. Maybe it just didn't work. Maybe they are still refining it and will come back with it sometime.I think they owe us some sort of press release explaining why they dumped the optimization test. Like I said, I've sent them email asking why there have been no press releases.
Dan King
"What golf has of honour, what it has of justice, of fair play, of good fellowship, and sportsmanship - in a word, what is best in golf - is almost surely traceable to the inspiration of the Royal and Ancient."
--Isaac Grainger