News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


TEPaul

Re: Dear USGA - are you paying attention YET?
« Reply #25 on: January 23, 2003, 11:50:48 AM »
Enough:

Another thing. I'm one of the biggest supporter generally of the USGA anyone can find. But even people like me aren't going to be supporters forever if things keep on going like this.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

A_Clay_Man

Re: Dear USGA - are you paying attention YET?
« Reply #26 on: January 23, 2003, 12:36:21 PM »
If the classic courses are so worried about being out scored, why don't they just make it one of their rules that the new equiptment can't be used there. Collard shirts, no cut offs blah blah blah. Why not, no drivers over 300cc or no ball younger than May of 99' or some other exclusivity building protocols. While most of this is tounge in cheek I do keep thinking of a line from the movie "Secret to my Success" Mercedes Ruhl (sp?) plays a waitress with a very positive outlook and has a line or two describing how anything negative is contractionary to the universe while expansion and growth are positives.
Since this site is a valuable resource for 'not just industry types' I wonder why anyone in the golf course design or construction biz would want to stiffel the opportunity to keep growing, keep building and keep designing?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Enough

Re: Dear USGA - are you paying attention YET?
« Reply #27 on: January 23, 2003, 12:53:53 PM »
Dan King

I was not attacking or questioning Geoff's knowledge of golf trivia.  I was just questioning his technical background to appreciate all the technical points that are an intrinsic part of the issue.  Perhaps I'm wrong -- maybe he has a physics PHD from MIT.  I just doubt there are many/any people on this site who could follow and understand the technical apsects of all this.  I'm the first to admit that I couldn't understand all that.

TEPaul

You wrote that the question was asked 18 months ago.  A lot can happen in 18 months -- why not ask them again?  At that time perhaps they were in very sensitive talks with the R&A and/or manufacturers and didn't want to give things away at that time.  Give 'em another chance to answer.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Colonel Sanders

Re: Dear USGA - are you paying attention YET?
« Reply #28 on: January 23, 2003, 01:38:50 PM »


Yeah, let's give the USGA more time. Afterall, to think any of us here might have any worthwhile judgments in comparison to the USGA on the technologies issues is ludicrous.

Besides, like was already posted, "Who knows? Maybe the USGA and R&A are about to unveil a master plan."  ;D

Just give it time, everybody.

 :) ;) ??? ::)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

SL_Solow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dear USGA - are you paying attention YET?
« Reply #29 on: January 23, 2003, 01:42:02 PM »
2 quick points; first in response to Enough's central issue, the topic will be exhausted when people stop responding to new threads.  It is clearly an important one, particularly to those of us who love and respect classic courses.  Second, Enough's requirements that those discussing this issue must either have significant technical expertise or alternatively trust the USGA contains an imbedded assumption that the members of the Implements and Balls subcommittee have those qualifications.  That is not the case although they do have access to the reports of their technical staff.  Nonetheless for the most part they are just interested golfers who have the time and inclination to serve.  While this does not make them wrong, it does remove them from some exalted position of expertise which is immune from criticism of the ignorant masses (excuse the sarcasm but I'm with Lynn when it comes to blind acceptance of those in power.  Probably something to do with growing up in the 60's or reading the Constitution)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

JohnV

Re: Dear USGA - are you paying attention YET?
« Reply #30 on: January 23, 2003, 01:42:39 PM »
Dan, Geoff has another advantage over those who work for the USGA.  He doesn't represent an organization that gets second-guessed everytime anyone there says anything.  This allows him to state his opinion.

Remember the storm when Buzz Taylor spoke up about equipment when he shouldn't have.  Also remember the controversies this past summer when the USGA and R&A changed to a tougher position on COR than they had put out in their initial request for comments.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

A_Clay_Man

Re: Dear USGA - are you paying attention YET?
« Reply #31 on: January 23, 2003, 01:59:39 PM »
Ironic how Enough mentioned to Dan King about Physics and technicalities. You see Dan used to be with nasa. So....
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dear USGA - are you paying attention YET?
« Reply #32 on: January 23, 2003, 01:59:52 PM »
Enough:

You said:

>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?

You are never required to read a thread.  Why should my topics bother you?

And, by the way, be man ENOUGH to sign your name.


Geoff:

You make some great points.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

Enough

Re: Dear USGA - are you paying attention YET?
« Reply #33 on: January 23, 2003, 02:54:22 PM »
What a wacky group.

I bet you guys don't even like Rees Jones's architecture.

I'm sorry to have extended this madness.  Have fun.

Enough.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Dear USGA - are you paying attention YET?
« Reply #34 on: January 23, 2003, 04:24:30 PM »
"What a wacky group.

I bet you guys don't even like Rees Jones's architecture.

I'm sorry to have extended this madness.  Have fun.

Enough"


There's no way in hell you're going to be able to stay away from this group. You'll be out there lurking--there's no question about it!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Doug Siebert

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dear USGA - are you paying attention YET?
« Reply #35 on: January 23, 2003, 04:28:14 PM »
Quote
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.


It isn't as though the Pro V1x comes out so your home course start building new teeboxes first thing this spring.  It takes time for these changes to ripple through, but they do.  That's why you hear about new designs that are 7500+ yards from the tips, often with room for further lengthening in the future should it be necessary.  Yeah, you can argue this isn't for the average golfer, and that's true, but if the tips are 7500 instead of 7100, the next set of tees may be 7000 instead of 6600, and so on.  The players playing the regular or forward tees may not see as much of a length increase as the tips, but there'll be some, or the course might have to move to six sets of tees to keep the women's and senior tees pretty close to where they are now without creating a big gap somewhere in the middle.  This lengthing is part of the reason why you see all these courses with five sets today when three sets (two for courses that didn't allow women) was good enough in the 60s.

A course designed to be 7500 yards with room to go to 8000 yards takes up more land, a fifth or sixth set of teeboxes requires more maintenance, etc.  So the new course costs more for everyone to play.  If they create a new course that only goes to 7000 yards and can't ever be lengthened to avoid those extra costs, they either have to make it very tight and penal to challenge the better players, which makes it harder and less enjoyable for average players, or they have to decide to not bother to challenge better players to use all the clubs in their bag.  I wonder how it hurts word of mouth to have a new course that is not adequately challenging to single digit handicaps, since they probably play more rounds per year than average golfers as well as play a greater number of different courses a year?  The Golf Digest raters are all 3 hdcp or less IIRC, and GCA has a large proportion of better players.  For a really good course it won't matter, but what about one that's "pretty good".  The difference in play might be the difference between profit or loss on the venture.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
My hovercraft is full of eels.

TEPaul

Re: Dear USGA - are you paying attention YET?
« Reply #36 on: January 23, 2003, 04:35:59 PM »
I feel a certain kinship for William Flynn and what he wrote about this subject in 1927! When you read it it sounds like it was written today--and it was even addressed to the USGA. He sure didn't feel much comfort then so he just designed tons of "elasticity" into some of his "championship" courses!

So just keep designing in that elasticity you guys today--they'll be needing it!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Jim Sweeney

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dear USGA - are you paying attention YET?
« Reply #37 on: January 23, 2003, 04:40:51 PM »
Good evening, everyone!

About that optimization test... the USGA did anounce that it had shelved the test for now. And I know why! Don't ask how...

All the optimization test was meant to do was add launch angle to the other variables (initial velocity, etc.) The fact is that for all top line balls the optimum launch angle is a pretty narrow corridor-  eleven to thirteen degrees, approximately. The plain fact is that no one has come close to launching drives at those rates, so the test was pretty meaningless, at least for now.

BTW, the USGA did state, when it initially considered the test, that no ball would fail because of it. However, the balls of the future might be affected.

The reason the USGA continued to use Iron Byron for so long was consistency. The ODS was set in 1974- in laymen's terms, in controlled experiments a ball could go 296 yards. Balls of that time were going about 276 yards. Since then the manufacturers have reduced that gap considerably. But look at the average Tour drive last year... it was not 296 yards.

As for the 109 mph swing speed, the USGA set that standard for testing because it represented the 80th percentile of all golfers, and it still does today! That some Tour pros hit the ball farther is due to their ability to swing at higher speeds (i.e., Tiger at about 120, Daly a little faster, etc.) That's called skill. Very importantly, hard fairways with very short grass (watch a tour drive bounce- they get 30+ yds. bounce and roll unless there has been rain.

Frankly, if Els hits a drive 364 down hill, down wind, to a very hard fairway with grass cut at 1/2 inch, with a swing speed of 115 mph, I'm not going to get to upset about his equipment. It used to be a joke that Chi Chi changed clubs every other year or so, and always clained twenty extra yards. According to him, he should have been hitting the ball 350 with every swing. Take Tour player's claims with a grain of salt- they are helping to sell stuff.

So you know, the USGA has announced going to a Titanium club and looking at the swing speed issue, but Ol' Iron Byron is now only used for calibration and verification of computerized, indoor ball measurement equipment.

As for different rules for different players, it will not happen, for several reasons. 1) It's just not right. For the game to have any meaning, we all need to play by the same rules. Baseball and other sports that have adopted different rules for different catagories of players have diminished those sports significantly. 2) Go to any course- public or private- and see how many are playing strictly by the rules. Even if there were a second set of rules for non Tour players, many if not most golfers would add or disregard to suit themselves, so what's the point? 3) The Tours rely on their fan's Walter Mitty-esk dreams. If they played by a separate set of rules they would be cutting their umbilical cord to the people who make that $225,000,000 prize fund possible.

The reduced speed ball won't fly, either. (ugh) The tour's sybiosis with manufacturers won't let it happen. Manufacturers compete to get their equipment highlighted on tour, so that we'll by more of it. Is it a mystery as to why those Darrell surveys are so well distributed? The essence of competition (among advertisers) is differentiation. Every manufacturer will stand against a standardized competition ball. That is the only reason it hasn't already happened. It could have happen under the rules as they exist today.

I think the recent stand the USGA took on COR pretty much squashed any talk about their fear of getting sued. They've never lost, you know. They are not as flush as everyone thinks, given the ever increasing scope of USGA operations, and the amount of their net worth that is tied up in property. (Land in Far Hills and NYC ain't cheap.) If you want to see the effect of the USGA's money, go look at your front lawn (almost all grasses available today are the descendents of USGA sponsored research); look at programs like the First Tee (the USGA is a major financial contributor); look to your local golf association (USGA funded interns), your local VA and rehabilitation Hospitals (USGA funded golf programs), etc, etc. But they will give it all up to defend their right to produce a set of rules, one that, though slowly and thoughfully modified through the years, has served, and continues to serve, us all very well.

The great hope is that the R&A will form a separate organization for rules making, and get its members off the liability hook which has influenced its ability to take a stand on certain issues- like COR. A recent article suggested a move in this direction.

FINALLY (sorry for this stream of consciousness stuff), just so you know, the USGA I+B program consists of some very talented people from places like research universities, NASA, and the military, in addition to the USGA technical staff. These people are volunteers- no pay, no expenses. USGA test procedures are not made in a vacuum.

Sorry again for the length of this post.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"Hope and fear, hope and Fear, that's what people see when they play golf. Not me. I only see happiness."

" Two things I beleive in: good shoes and a good car. Alligator shoes and a Cadillac."

Moe Norman

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back