Dear USGA - are you paying attention YET?

[Paul Richards]

After you get through reading this, please pass it along to the people you know at the USGA - maybe finally they will understand that technology needs to be reigned in!!


-------------------
>More evidence to justify the USGA's need to "protect the game" was gathered at Kapalua, where the driving distances were mind-boggling. Because the course plays downhill, downgrain and downwind, some of the numbers were misleading, still it's scary to see what pros can do when dialed in with the right ball, clubhead and shaft -- specifically the Ernie Els blast on the par-5 15th Saturday. This rocket was both monstrous and monumental. With seven seconds of hang time and a roll to 364 yards it will become to the distance issue what Mark Calcavecchia's 8-iron from the rough in the 1987 Honda Classic was to square grooves. We all know who won that battle, and it wasn't the blue coats.

----------
from GolfWorld, Jan. 17, Tim Rosaforte's column:
 

[TEPaul]

"With seven seconds of hang time and a roll to 364 yards it will become to the distance issue what Mark Calcavecchia's 8-iron from the rough in the 1987 Honda Classic was to square grooves. We all know who won that battle, and it wasn't the blue coats."
Tim Rosaforte

Tim Rosaforte is a good reporter but maybe he should do a bit more in-depth research about that 1987 Calcavecchia Honda Classic 8 iron square groove issue he's referring to. In case Tim didn't realize it square grooves had been around for years before Calcavecchia hit that 8 iron in the Honda Classic. Matter of fact square grooves had been legal long before Ping and Karsten Solheim too.

But why should a trivial fact like that stand in the way of an analogy?

[A_Clay_Man]

Paul- This is the second thread on this subject in as many weeks, are you ok? Forgive me if I'm wrong but aren't you a member at this years open venue? and is this issue keeping you up at night worried your course will be made to look too easy. (really curious, not being snide) I hope I get back home to Chicago this year and we can hook up and spiel some goof. nezpah?

[TEPaul]

Paul:

You are worried about your Medinah getting clobbered aren't you?

Don't worry about it--the USGA has a great solution for your concerns. They plan to drown those fairways at Medinah from tee to green within an inch of their lives and then make those greens as firm as US1.

That'll fix that Ernie Els's wagon!

[Paul Richards]

Adam and Tom:

I guess I plan to keep harping on the subject until the USGA and R & A do something about it.

I still believe that a tournament ball is the way to go for the PGA Tour.

It is a shame to see great classic courses like Medinah get overrun by technology.  In fact, it's sad to see great modern tracks (that are tough!) like Kapalua get run over as well!

[Gary Danielson]

Great to see Rosaforte coming around. For years he has been labeling the equipment changes as "progress." Funny how long it takes the elite golf writers to see the light.

[john stiles]

Paul,

They can do a tournament ball !  

I am reading my latest Golfweek and the article mentions that Titliest NEVER sold the Titleist Pro V1 Diamond to consumers !!
Let's see now......  they make a Pro V1 Diamond and never sell it to consumers ....  sounds like a Tournament ball.

They have had SIX versions of the Pro V1 ball.  Six versions of a single line. SIX !   They can make a tournament ball or roll it back.

Titleist already made a tournament ball.  USGA never noticed.

Almost as bad as not knowing how large a head the maunfacturers are producing,  announcing a restriction which affects clubheads already in production, and then retreating.

The USGA guys need to get out more often  or  just read.

" In a discussion with some golf writers not too long ago, I was asked what professional golf would be like in 50 years.  I said,  I assume we'll just tee off from our hotels." ........Jack Nicklaus ....'Nicklaus by Design', page 262.

[Enough]

Paul Richards

It's time to change the record.  How many posts are you going to make on this subject without (1) writing anything that has not been previously stated and (2) having an original thought?

Do you think you

(1) Are smarter than the USGA and R&A?
(2) Know more about equipment than the USGA and R&A?
(3) Have better judgement than the USGA and R&A?
(4) Have a better sense of what is good for the game than the USGA and R&A?
(5) Care more about the issue than the R&A and USGA?

Stop kidding yourself.

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Enough,

Since you like to ask questions let me throw a few your way:

1) How come the USGA dropped the optimization ball test to replace Iron Byron?
2) Did every ball fail under this new test?
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?
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?
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!?
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.

They understand this cost increase and expansion of golf courses is not a healthy pattern, right? Hopefully they don't understand, because if they do and simply refuse to act out of fear of losing their litigation nest egg in litigation, then their integrity would be in question.

Geoff

[Enough]

Geoff Shakelford

Wow.  Another genius.

I don't pretend to know exactly what the USGA knows or does, just as I don't pretend to know what President Bush knows with respect to Iraq.  I just think it is safe to say that they (the USGA and R&A on equipment and the Bush administration on Iraq) know more than we do on those matters.  I happen to trust both parties.

Who knows?  Maybe the USGA and R&A are about to unveil some  master plan.  Unless some of us have been privy to discussions within the USGA and R&A, we shouldn't put words in their mouths.

It's always easy to criticize . . .  

[John Nixon]

At one level, isn't this whole debate rather pointless? In my opinion, there's the "golf" that professionals play, and the "golf" that the rest of us play. What percentage of the golf that is played throughout the world is made up of those at the level the pros play? What percentage of courses in the world do they use? Small numbers for both I imagine. If there were no tour, wouldn't you all still be playing the game? If I suddenly gain 20 yards/drive (22 hndcp) no course in the world is going to be threatened. What course is going to go out of business simply because it's not long enough for the tour players?

Are there clubs whose membership is overall so skilled that the majority of its members will no longer want to play there because it's "obsolete"?

[Pete Lavallee]

Enough;

I can see why you use a pseudonym, I wouldn't want people to know I was truely that naive. Geoff hit the nail on the head with points 1,2 and 3. People who swing at less than 109 mph have not gained any distance with the new clubs and balls. However, people who surpass this threshold have gotten a tremendous advantage. It's obvious that the USGA's refussal to use the optimization testing backs up this contention. Just today I read in the S.D. paper that Phil Mickleson has actually been working out because "when I really go after it (with his new 983 driver and ProV1x ball), I am carrying it 15 to 20 yards farther." This combination, by the way is the same one that Ernie Ells used to shred the two courses in Hawaii with.

[JohnV]

Well Enough, I was agreeing with you until you decided to trust Bush on Iraq.

Geoff,

1) Don't know why they dropped it. Maybe it just didn't work.
2) Did they?  Do you know that for a fact?  If they did, doesn't that mean that the test was flawed?  After all for a test to be valid, it must yield the same results for as the current test unless you are changing the specifications.  Even then, if all the balls fail, there is something wrong.  Perhaps they even went back and checked balls that they keep in their archives from 1980 and they failed.
3) The reason the USGA tests balls at 109 with a persimmon driver is to remain consistent.  If they switched to a Titanium driver at 125, all balls would be illegal.  But so would most, if not all, of the ones from 1980.  You can't change horses in the middle of the stream like that.
4) I'm sorry you hold the USGA and R&A in such a low regard.  I don't
5) Sure they make mistakes at the US Open, all of us who setup events do.  They also are pushing the envelope every year.  Also, I assume the mistakes they made last year were in having too long a carry on 10 and 12 for the pros who you claim are hitting the ball too far.  Hmmm.
6) Lets see, COR, maximum clubhead size and possibly a maximum length on clubs.  They are doing some things.  Sure technology will continue to advance and they will always be trying to keep up with it.  It is an on-going battle.

As for the cost of golf due to increased length etc.  There are over 300 golf courses the WPGA territory and as far as I know most of them have not done one thing to increase the length or make any other changes due to the technological changes.  But I'd bet most of them still raised fees.  Why?  Because things cost more even if you change nothing.  Sure, the fancy new clubs that we like to spout off about on this forum are getting pretty pricey and each new one is longer than the last one.  Clubs like Bandon Dunes have raised their price from $100 when they opened to $200 this year.  And they haven't added any length in answer to the increases in technology.

The cost of golf has increased for many more factors than technology and I would argue that is a fairly minor reason.  The bigger costs are due to the increased maintenance costs because golfers wanting pristine surfaces to play off.  This seems to be a better place to spend energy.

Equipment has gotten more expensive, but I bet if you go out to the normal public course you won't see a lot of that stuff in people's bags.  I know I didn't at Pajaro when I went out and played with the average guys who played there.

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Enough,

Thanks for reminding me about the new American way...those who have the audacity to question authority are unpatriotic. And anyone in an elected office or in a position of power must be right, and the rest of us are supposed to just follow along, do our consuming, do what we are told, nod our heads in admiration, etc... anything else is "putting words in their mouths." Scary stuff.

Nixer,
Your question is valid, but the problem is, everyday golfers are paying for this. Consider in 1927 that Bobby Jones said that a tournament ball was necessary to stop building 7000 yards courses that no one would want to have the time or money or energy to pay. Well, 7000 is the standard now, how long before 8000 yards? It's silly to think that people build courses for professionals, or lengthen their home course for them, but it is just part of the sport. When does it end?
Geoff

[John Nixon]

Geoff - you're right. I don't usually play newer, top of the line courses so I'm not really cognizant of the costs of accommodating a longer game that are passed on to consumers. It is illogical that this happens, but I suppose it does.

[Enough]

Geoff Shackelford:

It looks like JohnV beat me to the punch, but I don't want to be rude by not answering your questions:

1) Why not contact the USGA Test Center and post its explanation regarding the current status of the optimization test?  That would be interesting, don't you agree?
2) By asking if every ball failed the test, you are offering a de facto statement of your belief that they did.  Again, perhaps you might want to get a hold of the facts from the Test Center and include a factual statement in your response.
3) As a matter of fact, I recall reading a press release stating that the USGA will be updating the test with a modern titanium driver.  You might want to look into that.
4) You didn't care to mention of whom you speak when you state that the USGA & R&A have never been held in lower regard, though through your persuasive efforts you seem to have cornered the market in that regard.
5) I can only assume you are mentioning the U.S. Open course set-up when you refer to what has been done "horribly wrong."  With the most demanding championship in golf being contested on the most demanding courses, set up under the most difficult conditions, and with the best players in the world, it's hard to imagine there could be any smaller margin for error.  All things considered, I think most involved in the game would find it difficult to improve on what is done, though there most certainly room to do so.  And, out of curiosity, have you ever set up an entire course, including the pin placements, for a tournament?  I imagine it's not as easy as we might think.
6) The last time I checked, the game of golf is played in accordance with the Rules.  I don't remember seeing the Rules of Golf being written or published by any equipment manufacturers.  Certainly the economics of golf are not desirable, but does that mean the USGA and other members of the golf community should abandon their initiatives that support under-privileged youths?  Or, rather, should they increase their support of such initiatives?

You made a number of assumptions and grandiose leaps in your comments not substantiated by facts, as I did in mine.  Perhaps we should both focus our efforts on promoting a game that means so much to us, getting more people involved, spending more time teaching the game to kids, rather than bashing the institutions that are in existence to support the game.  Imagine that passion and energy directed toward positive outlets.

Just a thought.  

[TEPaul]

Geoff Shackelford asked this of another contributor:

"1) How come the USGA dropped the optimization ball test to replace Iron Byron?"

Now that's something I would REALLY REALLY like to know!!

The answer to that possibly could be of not much significance but on the other hand it COULD BE REALLY REVEALING!

I hate to think the worst but I'm not making any snap assumptions about that either!

Possible answers:

1. Indication of dropping back into total "Paper Tiger" mode, intimidated by the manufacturers response to regulatory action.

2. Optimization testing could reveal completely embarrassing facts about almost all their former ball testing procedures and protocols and stats. (ie--they may have been asleep in the lab for years in a simple ball "pass/fail" mode not even bothering to look out the window to determine what the manufacturers were planning for the future). The balls the pros were using back then may have been way under the "pass/fail" line (in allowable distance production) until it was too late. The manufacturers basically combined the old soft feel tour ball into the mega distance rock and UHOH, OHMYGOD, what the hell is that? (From the USGA). Or put another way, they weren't expecting the pros to use THOSE balls!

3. There's nothing much there at all to be revealed by optimization testing or they've suddenly grown nostalgic for old Iron Byron!

But if it turns out to be remotely like #2 there's going to be some real hell to pay by Far Hills one of these days! If that's it and they have to admit it---whoa, if you want to see some real red faces turn to Far Hills!

[Geoff_Shackelford]

John,

Optimization was the name of the test to replace Iron Byron because it was apparently Byron wasn't working (consistency was not as important as actually drawing the line...in theory anyway). The equipment companies have figured out how to work around Byron, which is not a good thing. But optimization was scrapped and the announcement that modifications would instead be made to Iron Byron. No one has a clear answer why the new test was dropped.

You are right John, look into the average bag and you won't see a lot of this stuff. And that's the point. Is golf played so people can consume equipment or enjoy playing? The equipment companies would like it to be the former, and they are slowly getting their way. With unlimited expansion, people either feel the need to keep buying the latest equipment/ball, or they refuse, and eventually lose interest. The fact that golf has not grown during the Tigermania is stunning. It's cost, length of rounds and difficulty. How will those issues be resolved when courses are getting longer, equipment more expensive, rounds longer? I'm sure the 20/20 group will resolve this, with Wally Uhlien running the meetings.

But here's the question. The theory of technology is that it makes things easier to produce, cheaper to make, etc... So why is it that the cost of maintaining courses keeps going up? Or the cost of clubs and balls? Shouldn't it all be going down in cost, giving more people the opportunity to buy the latest and greatest club, and more courses the chance to have beautiful conditioning?

As for setup John, the mistakes are typically a result of trying to protect par in the face of better players and maintenance. It's the ultimate in self-importance, par makes us look like we are in control, 15 under means the players were in control and they hate the latter.  That's sad. And yes, they are hitting it longer, but a 250 yard carry into the wind in the rain is still tough, no matter the equipment. What did that forced carry prove? That the USGA can look at a course setup for 2 years and not notice a potential problem. That's pretty sad for peope who are supposed to "love" the game and who are supposed to have a sense for it.
Geoff

[Enough]

Geoof Shackelford

If you read my original post, I was simply making the point that this group has discussed this subject ad nauseam without raising anything new.

One thread on the subject is fine; 50 is pathetic, especially when facts are seldom used.

You can disagree, but the thought that people like you and me know more (or as much) about the matter or have better judgement than the R&A and USGA is  laughable.

[JohnV]

Geoff,

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.

The interesting thing about equipment is that some of the manufacturers are now talking about getting back into more low priced clubs.  This is because they have priced themselves out of the average Joe's pocket book.

The same thing is happening at a lot of CCFADs.  Green Fees are only going up at the real big names like Bandon.  At others they are dropping or if they don't drop the rack rate they are offering specials.

Technological advances can have one of two effects.  It can either lower price or it can produce "better" results.  I put better in quotes because I think we both agree that green speeds exceeding 12 are getting crazy.  But to get them you need Techonogically advanced grass seeds and mowers and both of them cost more money.  It would be great if everything worked the same way the computer industry does where things get better and cheaper every year.  But usually you only get one or the other.

As for the cost of things going up, who says that has anything to do with the cost of producing them.  I'd bet the main increase in the cost of clubs and balls has to do with paying players to use them and marketing them, not manufacturing them.

If there is one area I would disagree with the USGA in their US Open setup is that are too inflexible at times.  The mistake they made was not moving the tees up on #10 when the weather turned bad like the PGA did at Hazeltine on #16.

[TEPaul]

Enough (although you seem to have a first name):

That's a weak point you make. Something is going on and you say we should stop talking about it simply because we talk about it too much?

Belay that. It's a really stupid point you make!

Shackelford asked a very pertinent question about a problem anyone but a blind man can see! He asked what's happened to the expected "optimization" testing that the USGA seemed so hopeful about and expectant about just a year or two ago?

Who wouldn't suspect that might have some relevancy to the recent distance increase problem?

We all want facts, but no one is supplying them? Why is that? If Far Hills (or anyone else with knowledge) produced some facts maybe we could all discuss this subject much more cogently and far more quickly!

[Andy]

I see many USGA positions as real conflicts.  On the one hand, they do really stupid things like setting up courses with 255 yard carries to the fairway(even without bad weather, one would have to ask "why"?), and pushing greens speeds and rough heights to levels that are probably "beyond" in an efforts to protect par.  Then, on the other hand, they seem unwilling to mandate some sort of rollback or at least realistic look at how top notch tournament golf is played.  Clearly, we are at the stage, like baseball(wooden bats/aluminum bats) or football(one foot in bounds, two feet in bounds), that we need different rules for the PGA Tour and other major championships.  The solution, I think, is quite simple.  Roll back golf ball performance to 1994-1995 levels, put that standard in for all manufacturers, then they can produce a tournament ball with their own markings.  The rest of the world can continue to use hotter equipment, longer flying balls, and the like.  The first step could be The Masters, The PGA Championship, or The US Open if someone has some guts to put rules in effect for a tournament that are specific to that tournament.  I think the USGA is one messed up group of conflicted guys, who on the one hand are a bunch of blue-blazered, frustrated guys who were never good enough to play at a high level, so they like to embarrass or attempt to embarrass truly good players, but then don't have the guts to get at the REAL PROBLEM with the game.  We need TWO standards.  Does anyone really disagree it is time for different rules/regs/specs?

[Enough]

TEPaul

You type a lot.

Using your line of thinking, I can imagine another exciting series of threads regarding a white wall: The White Wall; The Wall -- White?; How White is that Wall?; What a White Wall!; etc. with comments such as "I think that wall is white;" "I agree - it's white all right;" "Is that wall white or what?"

If nothing new is being added to the discussion, why repeat each other over and over again?  For people with bad memories?

If you are burning to know about the optimization test, why not ask the USGA?

As you hint at (perhaps not intentionally), the probelm might simply lie with the communications ability of the USGA and R&A.  Maybe they are doing great things that we simply don't know.

[Dan King]

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

[TEPaul]

"If you are burning to know about the optimization test, why not ask the USGA?

As you hint at (perhaps not intentionally), the probelm might simply lie with the communications ability of the USGA and R&A.  Maybe they are doing great things that we simply don't know."

Enough:

You're at least right on about the USGA and R&A's communication ability.

I do type a lot. So what? Obviously that offends your interesting problem solving technique which appears to be if there's too much discussion then there're shouldn't be any discussion at all.

I'm sure plenty of us have asked the USGA about these things, or tried to, and no understandable answer appears to come from them.

About a year and a half ago at a GAP meeting including all our clubs with Rugge and Holland the question was asked about that and the only response was 'we're looking into other test procedures'. The question was also asked of Rugge if he could talk about what the past USGA stats were when balls were hit at speeds exceeding 109mph. He gave an answer but no one could understand it because it wasn't relevant to the question. The man stood up and asked the question again even saying it didn't seem like the answer was relevant. Rugge simply repeated the same answer. What are you going to do--ask him again?

What does that make people who are interested in knowing some facts on this issue feel like? What does that make you feel like Enough? What do you think about that? What do you think of an answer like that?

Maybe great things are going on up there in B&I testing and they aren't talking about it. Maybe great things were going on 75 years ago when William Flynn was asking the same questions of them we are today. Maybe they will tell us someday but where will golf and its architecture be then?