Isn't C.B. MacDonald really to blame for the distance issues?

[Brian_Gracely]

1894 - USGA is founded
1901 - Haskell ball is widely adopted (20+ yards of distance increased)
1911 & 1917 - The USGA increased yardage for determining par

During this time, CBM was the most dominant figure in all of US golf.  Essentially he was setting the direction for golf in America and trying to coordinate it with the R&A.

But during this time, we had as much expansion of distance to golf, due to advances in equipment, as we appear to have today.  But at the time, nothing was done to control the distance issue either.  

So considering the precedent that was set during CBM's tenure within the USGA, should people really be blaming the current leadership of the USGA for following the precedent of their predecessors?  

[Peter Galea]

Well, you could blame him, but......he's dead.
Being dead he really can't defend himself.

[Brian_Gracely]

But didn't he essentially set the standard for which the current USGA feels they should interviene in the advancement of technology?  

btw - being dead doesn't seem to stop people from criticizing Donald Ross on this site....

[Michael Moore]

btw - being dead doesn't seem to stop people from criticizing Donald Ross on this site....

I have yet to hear from a dead person on this site . . .

[TEPaul]

Sandbox Gracely:

If  one analyzes Macdonald's position on distance increase with the onset of the haskell ball one sees that Macdonald did not only NOT support a limitation on distance he virtually concluded that that haskell ball made no real difference (this from a ball test at NGLA that's cited in his book). I think you can find it all in his book "Scotland's Gift Golf". He also did not appear to support any real limitation on implements (his position on the Schenectedy putter issue is evidence of that). Macdonald's philosophy on organizational golf associatons such as the R&A and USGA seemed to be the less they had to deal with the more successful they were and the healthier the game was.

[Brian_Gracely]

Tom,

If CBM's approach was essentially laisse-faire towards I&B (or technological advances), then why do you suppose that the GCA treehouse seems to be so interested in things like rolling back the distance of the ball?  

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
If CBM's approach was essentially laisse-faire towards I&B (or technological advances), then why do you suppose that the GCA treehouse seems to be so interested in things like rolling back the distance of the ball?

Sandbox:

I'm not sure I understand your question or the intent of it. Are you saying you think the "Treehhouse" endorses, or should, eveything Macdonald said on I&B?

There's no question the R&A and USGA is still acting in a very laisse-faire way.

If there was a distance problem in the era of the haskell ball or if there is one today and a fellow like Macdonald did not recommend something be done about it, the fact that nothing much was done about it then or is being done about it now should be looked at as a potential mistake.

A philosopher such as Max Behr made a very interesting point way back when (in the teens and 1920s). That point of Behr's was----at what point does I&B just sustain skill? It occurs to me that neither the R&A nor the USGA has actually ever bother to define exactly what is meant by the terrm "skill" in golf!