[Paul Richards]

With Ron's permission, this is the first letter regarding how technology had gotten out of control - written in 1993.

It is just amazing to me that here we are some 12-plus years later, and, basically, the USGA has done NOTHING to prevent what has happened to this great game.  

Ron espouses use of a tournament ball - TWELVE-PLUS YEARS AGO!    He predicts what will happen if the ball is not reigned in - is he omniscient?

For those who are just joining us, please refer to my other thread, "USGA renewal notice" for more information on this topic.

------------------


March 22, 1993
Mr. David B. Fay
Executive Director
United States Golf Association
Golf House
P.O. Box 708
Far Hills, NJ 07931-0708


Dear Mr. Fay:



On Thursday, March 4,1993, the World Affairs Council of Philadelphia sponsored an afternoon and evening symposium "Golf! Of Course - A Celebration of the Game." One portion of the program was a panel discussion on The Future of Golf." The audience consisted of many of the most prominent men and women golf enthusiasts from the southeastern Pennsylvania/southern New Jersey area. They listened to presentations from John Metheny, Senior Director of Operations, United States Golf Association; Rees Jones, Rees Jones, Inc. Golf Course Design; Betsy Rawls, LPGA Hall of Famer, and Dick Smith, immediate past president of the PGA of America.

As John Metheny spoke, he discussed the efforts being made at Golf House to monitor technology and protect the game of golf. He spoke of how some years ago in setting the standards the USGA had included an area of tolerance that "they felt had pretty much been used up, and that consequently," the USGA felt the potential of "the golf ball was pretty well under control."

Following various commentary from the four panelists and moderator, Mrs. Midge Rendell, Philadelphia's First Lady, comments from the audience were invited. The first comment was posed by Mr. Ernest Ransome, the distinguished Chairman of the Board, Pine Valley Golf Club, Pine Valley, New Jersey.

Mr. Ransome expressed serious concern about the performance capabilities of the modern golf ball and that unless some change is made in the characteristics of this most critical element of the game, golf would be injured by our neglect.

[Paul Richards]

(continued)

Mr. Ransome spoke of how the long uphill par five Fifteenth Hole (590 yards) at Pine Valley had not been reached in two strokes in the first sixty years of the club's existence, and that this past decade, three golfers have accomplished the feat. He expressed recognition that as players compete with greater strength and technique, golf equipment is also changing, contributing to their performance, and that it is time for those of us who care about our game to consider the effects upon the great golf courses which arc the foundation of golf. Mr. Ransome was expressing his love of golf and issuing a call to action.

In the discussion which followed, John Metheny justified some of the distance gained by players today as a factor of fairways being mowed to a one-half inch (1/2") height, in contrast to a higher cut of yesterday. If John checks how long we have been capable of providing fairway turf at this height, he will understand this is not a recent development. Of course our maintenance practices produce finer manicured golf courses. Facts are that we shave our tour courses much finer than one-half inch, and this should further exaggerate the roll of the ball. John Metheny's response takes into consideration only half of today's management realities.

In truth, what we play on today are soft, lush courses which bear little resemblance to the conditions of the past. There was a time when the ground was a factor of design, and all sorts of imagination and skill were utilized to maximize a beneficial run or roll. The one iron Hogan hit at Merion followed a tee shot which ran on dry, firm turf. Today, players hit seven irons 175 yards after a drive "carrying" 265 yards. Consider, if you will, what will happen when limitations on water dry courses as they once were. When that happens, the game we have created in our country will bear even less resemblance to the Royal and Ancient game.

I wish to raise a question in response to the statement made by John Metheny and Ernest Ransome's concern. If indeed we do have our golf ball "pretty well under control", are we, perhaps, a bit too late?

Many of the finest works of golf architecture in Scotland, Ireland, England, the United States, Australia, and other golfing nations produced by nature and the master Architects of yesterday, are becoming little more than museum pieces. These old courses have stretched their length to the limits of their ground, and some, such as Aronimink Golf Club, Newtown Square, Pennsylvania, a great Donald Ross course, have repositioned and rebuilt their fairway trapping to meet changes in the game. This is not the solution.

Perhaps the finest book ever written on the subject of golf architecture is THE ARCHITECTURAL SIDE OF GOLF by Herbert N. Wethered and Thomas G. Simpson. This book was published in 1929. In the second chapter, "Attack and Defence (sic)", Simpson, a noted and perhaps, the best educated Golf Architect of his day, lists those factors which he describes as the most critical elements of attack on the game of golf.

          "The first - the one that is considered the most serious of all - is the alarming Increase of distance obtained by the modern ball. . . At the present time, we possess a ball which is agreeable to play with but is perhaps Just beyond the limits we would desire.
            "For the majority of courses the present ball undoubtedly does go too far and it may be necessary to go back a step In order to bring about an adjustment."

Mr. Fay, this was written almost three quarters of a century ago. Has anyone listened? Jack Nicklaus, Greg Norman, Mr. Ransome, and countless others have expressed their concerns about this game that we love and have voiced their deepest conviction that it is time, now, to reassess the properties of the golf ball, revise our standards, and reverse the technology which weakens the test of golf.

With ease, Golf Architects can maintain the requirements of yesterday's manner of play. If the USGA and the R & A wish to shrug off responsibility which can only be declared yours, perhaps the solution lies in this process:

     1.      Lengthen new courses by 700 or 800 yards. We can position tees appropriately for all classes of play.
     2.      Change the limiting lengths for holes of particular values.
       a.   Par three - can be lengthened to 275 yards.
       b.   Par four • stretched to 500 yards.

Simple enough, but these steps do little to rescue the character and strength of our great old courses. Only a handful of the most celebrated golf courses remain capable of testing the best, by calling for the shots sought by the Architect. And those few also face extinction.

If we don't have vision enough to see the results of changes in the game which affect golf in a unique manner, we can lengthen courses. Higher costs for land, for construction, and for maintenance may be necessary to reestablish the requirements of Championship Play.

We can dry out the greens and shave putting surfaces to bare ground so that, as at Augusta National during The Masters, we force defensive play. Unlike the great links of Great Britain, where rough areas off the fairway arc characterized by loosely woven rough grasses, here in the States we can allow our irrigated and fertilized rough to grow to eight inches and prevent all chance of recovery play. There are various golf course management options we can utilize to create a more penal game, but that is contrary to the real spirit of golf. The answer to restoration of the proper equation of skill and power is a change which will reduce the distance potential of the golf ball.

One position of value in any discussion of this sort is the recognition that men and women have unquestionably grown bigger and stronger, and they apply themselves to sports with total commitment at an earlier age. They are better coached and capable of reaching deeper to bring forth glorious achievements. The results - records arc broken. Men and women run faster, jump higher, and perform feats of greater strength and agility.  The list of improved physical achievements goes on and on. Eveiy sport has seen barriers shattered.

We can discuss equipment changes in tennis, a game threatened by a total emphasis on power at the expense of finesse, or in alpine skiing, which enable men and women to race at ever increasing speeds with modified technique and improved equipment. It is almost impossible to find a sport where technology and human capabilities haven't been combined to determine new limits.

One wonderful exception is our national sport, "baseball." At the professional level, wooden bats and an identical ball of years and years ago are still in use. Camden Yard in Baltimore, built to match a certain fundamental scale which has existed for years, opened in 1992. This year, a new park for the Chicago White Sox and next year a stadium in Cleveland will open. Each is being created on this same sense of dimension. Yankee Stadium, "The House that Ruth Built", and Fenway Park in Boston are filled with romance and memories. We can watch today's great young players strive to match the power and skill of Babe Ruth, Joe Dimaggio, Mickey Mantle, and Ted Williams with the same equipment under identical conditions.

Sadly, we can't say the same of golf. Unless men of courage take a positive stance and follow the advice of Tom Simpson, we'll never see a four wood played to the 15th green at Augusta during The Masters or a one iron played to the Eighteenth at Merion during a United States Open.

What matters most of all is this: you men who have the future of golf in your hands - you men of the USGA and the men of the Royal and Ancient Golf Club, must act on behalf of golf. The claim i& made that you are the "Protectors of the Game." Will you be strong enough to demonstrate that? If you and your associates have courage enough to respond to the urging of Simpson, Nicklaus, Norman, and others who have recorded their concerns, the great golf courses of yesterday can once again be tests of special merit.

In comments to John Metheny on March 4th in Philadelphia, I suggested that the USGA and the R & A specify stricter controls over a "Tournament Ball." A new class of golf ball could be developed with a lower Initial velocity and other limitations designed to establish a new performance specification. One side of this ball could carry the stamp of the R & A und on the other the crest of the USGA.

Every manufacturer could produce his "Tournament Ball" of a slightly off-shade white, and submit it for the scrutiny and approval of the rules authorities. Authorization could be issued so that for everyday play, today's modern ball would be s ball of choice. State Coif Associations could gradually introduce the "Tournament Ball" for their championships, and Individual clubs could be free to select the bull they favor for their special events.
 
I am firmly convinced that over time, the men and women who love our great game would gradually embrace your new ball and richly applaud your courage.

Mr. Fay, I have briefly outlined a fundamental reason for the United States Golf Association and the Royal and Ancient Golf Club to legislate a change in the capabilities of the golf ball and have listed a few of the men who have spoken in favor of such an effort.

Your prompt efforts would permit introduction of the Tournament Ball at the 1995 U.S. Open on the 100th anniversary of the first National Championship played in 1895 at the Newport Golf Club, Newport, Rhode Island. A month later it could be introduced at the British Open.

You have our great game in your hands, and I am certain your brave actions will be hailed for ages.




All the best to you,



Ron Prichard Golf Architect



cc:        Stuart F. Bloch, President
United States Golf Association
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul,

What's even more mind boggling is that the distances that Ron Cited aren't remotely close to the distances todays players are hitting the ball.

Ron cites carries of 265 yards in 1993 and today we see carries in excess of 300 yards.

What's interesting is the USGA's position at the time, that distances had pretty much maxed out in 1993.

Aren't we hearing the same thing today ?

Ron also cites lush, soft conditions and the consequence of water restrictions on increased distance.

What I don't understand is:

Ron Prichard and others saw what had happened, what was happening and what was going to happen if there was no attempt to reign in technology.

Yet, NOTHING was done.

The problem Ron perceived wasn't even acknowledged.

How can a governing body deal with an issue when they don't recognize and understand the issue ?

Has anything changed in 12 years ?

Will we be asking the same questions five years from now.

Paul, thanks for reminding us that some clearly saw the future of golf and tried to warn those responsible for its care.

[Paul Richards]

This is Ron's follow-up letter.

FIVE YEARS after the first!


---------------------------


June 8, 1998
Mr. Buzz Taylor
President
United States Golf Association
1124 Lake Road
Lake Forest, IL   60045




Dear Mr. Taylor:



I have enclosed a copy of a letter (we discussed on June 3, 1998), sent to Mr. David B, Fay, Executive Director of the United States Golf Association in March of 1993.

The purpose of the letter sent to Mr. Fay, (as you will read), was to outline a means by which the USGA and the R&A can request of manufacturers:

        That they produce an additional golf ball to meet a new set of standards (specifications), which the USGA and the R&A (Royal and Ancient Golfing Society) intend for use in the championships sponsored by these two ruling bodies of golf.

        This golf ball described in some detail in the enclosed letter of March 22, 19983, would be utilized for the men's U.S. Open and British Open, the Women's Open Championships, the British and USGA's Men's and Women's Amateur Championships, Senior, Mid-Amateur, and Junior Championship events.


"Perhaps" the USGA will also stipulate that the various State Golfing Associations follow suit and use the "Tournament Ball" in the State events, but the primary basis of what I propose is this:
   
     Based on my extensive travels in the world of golf, (which may be dwarfed by yours - but I do travel almost continuously), where I am selected to consult on and plan the restoration of numerous great old classic golf courses; 1 recognize there exists a significant percentage of today's golfers who desire that the game of golf, (as we played it several decades ago); is recaptured and preserved.
 

I am personally firmly convinced that many thousands, (perhaps some millions), of golfers would immediately embrace a "new" and special golf ball manufactured by Spalding, Wilson, Maxfli, Titleist and other recognized golf ball manufacturers, that is intended to restore much of the original spirit and strength of the game, and the classic golf courses.

If the USGA and the R&A take the position, "that, we have reached the decision to back up our claim to be "the Protectors of the game." We are requesting that golf ball manufacturers in addition to supply their present variety of golf balls, also develop a golf ball, or a set of golf balls, according to a new specification, which we will test and then approve as a "Tournament Ball," which will be used in our championship events; several beneficial developments affecting golf, may also follow:

       1.   Perhaps Influential members of the PGA Tour who have been somewhat outspoken  in urging you  to take some corrective actions will push for the adoption of the Tournament Ball for use in their events.
       2.   As stated above, I am optimistic enough about the true character of golfers to believe millions of players will also embrace this more "honest" golf ball.   I believe the foundation and traditions of golf are grounded on higher integrity than "perhaps" any other sport.   And even though thousands of new players are taking up the game today, (a very high percentage of them having been weaned in the era of perimeter weighted clubheads, exotic alloy clubshafts, and somewhat "improved" golf balls), I feel they will also, in time, follow the influence of "right minded" leadership.


Buzz, I am not quite sure how your jurisdiction filters down to each state golf association, although I know it's a strong, "perhaps binding," relationship. Therefore, it is likely I suppose that these bodies would also utilize the "USGA/R&A Tournament Ball" for their championships.

I don't know the range of legal aspects pertaining to what I suggest, but it appears to me that you two ruling bodies by simply adopting the position that you; (the USGA and the R&A), will utilize "your" tournament ball for "Championships" you conduct on the great old classic golf courses of Scotland, Ireland, England, Wales, and the United States can only be viewed as a "positive action." I see no basis for manufacturers' challenging a request that adds to the variety of balls they offer for sale.
 
Such a decision by the USGA and the R&A also further establishes the basis, (precedence), for a future change if adjustment again becomes "the right thing to do."

In this time, (1998), as I follow the activities that affect the future of golf, it appears to me that the improved technology which leads to advances in club design and materials, is "almost out of control."

The simple truth is that due 10 the improved technology of golf club shaft construction, resulting from the use of materials which improve the ability of equipment manufacturers to experiment with various combinations of weight and balance, a young player of our modern era who may not possess the strength of Arnold Palmer in his prime, or the flexibility of Sam Snead during his best years, can rip at a golf ball producing clubhead speeds which far surpass what either Palmer or Snead could risk. In their day (Palmer and earlier Snead), a player swung at 85% capability to match equipment properties. (Today 95% may be the rule when a golf club, because of its materials composition, has less torque in the shaft and wilt stay uon-line" at greater speed.)

It follows, that greater clubhead speed results in longer flight, (increased length with each club).

Perhaps there are also other ways to more tightly control the playing implements, (clubs), but the key, as I see it, to protecting the timelessnesS of golf lies in reducing the potential of the golf ball. For too many years we've been defending the present golf ball against all claims that it is performing better than just a few years ago. I've listened to numerous conversations where men have discussed the thoroughness of testing methods, studies that indicated there is no significant improvement, and the "6% tolerance" but perhaps we should accept that, perhaps the criteria we established for the golf ball years ago was "wrong" and "too generous."

Perhaps at the time we established the optimum approved golf ball characteristics we were forecasting "expected future results," and we were incorrect in our prediction.

I don't think the objective of the USGA and R&A should be to clamp down on the characteristics of every means of play (clubs and even balls) which is available to golfers to assist them in their search for an "easier game." Some folks will always seek every special advantage as they become available. Your mission should be to determine the ground rules, which correspond to championship events. I believe that alone will have far reaching beneficial results,
 
I'm not so sure it even matters how far people stretch the rules regarding playing tools during the average round. Some folks delight in seeking every advantage. Most carry a false handicap. And, if certain players employ every means of "beating" a golf course, it will only reinforce their disadvantage when they are required to "play by the rules."

I sincerely trust the highest percentage of golfers, (in spite of their initial response to your decision), will govern one another, (or the members of their foursome), will understand what is right for golf, and will recognize we must accept these "laws," Buzz, what matters most is the example you set, and your committee members set, in defending the value of our greatest old courses when they are under tournament play by the most skilled players.

I would appreciate the opportunity of meeting with you and with your advisory committee if that is of any help, and if the occasion arises where I might meet with you and your board members to discuss classical golf architecture, I would be pleased to present that topic.

Many, many brave golfers are prepared to follow you into battle if that becomes necessary, but I hope some of my thoughts point out a different way.


My very best wishes to you,


Ron Prichard Golf Architect

[Paul Richards]

Patrick


>Paul, thanks for reminding us that some clearly saw the future of golf and tried to warn those responsible for its care.



You're welcome.


If Ron could see this in 1993, and the USGA is just getting around to figuring this out, that tells me that my yearly 'donation' to their fund has been a complete waste of my hard-earned money.

Perhaps a refund is due?



FOR THE GOOD OF THE GAME



Indeed?!!!!?!!!!

 

[TEPaul]

I met Ron Prichard around 1999. The circumstances in which I met him are a really fascinating continuation on the themes of his letters to the USGA--eg he was on the same dais as Dick Rugge. I'd never met Ron before but I introduced myself----and he knew who I was. The most interesting thing, though, was since he obviously understood where I was coming from on the issue he handed me a written question to set him up to really address this question.

However, before I had an opportunity to even ask him (the set-up question) Ron got so animated he both asked and answered the question himself!!  

[Paul Richards]

Tom

>Ron got so animated he both asked and answered the question himself!!  


That's Ron to a T!!!


He is animated and gets worked up on issues that he feels compassionate about - in my view, these are Donald Ross and the USGA, and classical music.

I'm sure there are others.

But, for sure, he makes his feelings known about these particular issues!!

 

[T_MacWood]

That's one great letter, especially when you consider it was written 12 years ago.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Paul

Did Ron ever receive a written response from the USGA?

Steve

[Paul Richards]

Steve

>Did Ron ever receive a written response from the USGA?


I don't believe so.


Sad, isn't it??


 

[ForkaB]

Many thanks, Paul

Those are great letters by Ron P.  It should astound me that the USGA had neither the intelligence nor the common courtesy of replying, but I know that these were not the only times they acted with such arrogance and disdain for the people (their members!) who support and love the game.

[BCrosby]

A wonderful letter. Where do all you golf course architects learn to write? It can't be in the hydrology courses you took in college. Impressive. Why can't we get a man as articulate as Ron to participate more at GCA? (No, wait a minute, I think I know the answer to that.)

In his first letter Ron raises one of my hobby horses. Fairways are cut much closer now than ever in the past. B. Jones noted in the 60's how closely fairways were cut even then. I can't think of any compelling reason why they should be kept so short (especially if you are going to keep them watered) and lots of good reasons why they ought to be grown much higher.

The USGA's lack of response to such a thoughtful letter would have been predictable. Which says something about the nature of the organization.

Bob  

[Lou_Duran]

Paul,

Not to excuse the USGA, but institutions aren't often very good about addressing individual needs or concerns.  For example, I sent two letters to the dean of Ohio State's Graduate School of Business over a relatively simple, though important matter to me, and never got a response.  You would think that as a graduate with some distinction and a contributor to its various fund raising campaigns, some acknowledgement would have been forthcoming.  Not so, apparently, but it is not surprising that requests for additional donations keep on coming.

I too sent two or three letters to the USGA on this very topic (distance) in addition to the mandatory riding policies being instituted by many member clubs during the same time that the association was promoting its "Walking Member" campaign.   Though not so eloquent as Ron's, my first letter went unanswered, while the second, after I had included my renewal notice without payment, resulted in a call from a relatively junior employee.

The young man stated that they were on top of things, and that there were many competing opinions on the subjects.  Upon my suggestion that the USGA is in the leadership position and that it should act not on what is popular but in what is in the best long-term interests of the game, he replied with some agitation that they could no more force clubs and people to allow walking and use toned-down balls than they could dictate the type of hamburgers and hot dogs to serve.  With this response I thanked him for his call and told him that I would not be renewing my membership.

Some time later, I got a call from an USGA contractor engaged to further its membership program.  I related why I hadn't renewed and he responded that he would pass on this information to the USGA if I would reconsider.

A call followed a few weeks later by a woman who was now the membership director of the USGA.   She was fluent on the issues and offered some of the points in the association's defense.   She followed up by letter with her business card, and based on her attitude as well as arguments made by a couple folks here, I renewed my membership.

I don't consider my money wasted.  Though I too have a predisposition for the classic courses, I also understand the arguments for being cautious and not unilateral in defense of the game.  As so many have noted, the distance issue has been around since the beginning of golf and the game has grown and remained strong while it has evolved.

There is some momentum for the tournament ball as evidenced by reports of its inevitability in the popular press.  By all means give this medicine to those who are sick and need it.  Personally, Beverly, Chicago Golf, Shinny, Cypress Point, Olympic-Lake, et. al. have all the length I require and none should contemplate any alterations to satisfy my needs.  Let Daley and Tiger play the 7,500+ yard courses and/or be required to use a ball which makes the competition courses relevant.

I will once again send a letter to the USGA encouraging consideration for a tournament ball.  My suggestion is that the ball should fly in the neighborhood of 240 yards at the average tour swing speed (average of top 125 players on the U.S. money list), which should bring back some of the bunkers and angles back in play.  Without a doubt, I believe that much more can be accomplished from within.  If a significant percentage of members would voice its opinion, I think that the leadership would be better positioned to take action.  I also think that they want to do the right thing, once there is a clear concensus of what that is.

     
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Was Edmund Burke thinking about the golf ball and technology when when he was alleged to have said:

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."


 

Lou Duran, et. al.,

There was but one flaw in Ron Prichard's letter.

It didn't state, " I await your reply"

While acknowledgement of receipt would have been a common courtesy, Ron didn't ask for a response to his letter, which was a critical omission.

Everything Ron said was resonable and accurate, but, absent a written request for the USGA's reply, the letter could be relegated to obscurity.

When you view Ron's letter in the context of the article entitled, "Keeping Our Eye on the Ball" in the October 2005 edition of "Inside the USGA", you have to wonder what the USGA"s perception was, and what amount of time was devoted to the issues Ron raised, between 1993-1995 and 2005.

And, EXACTLY WHEN DID THE LIGHT BULB GO ON ?

or, is it still OFF ?

[ForkaB]

Pat

That was because Ed was a short hitter, who relied on a wicked short game to keep his handicap in single figures.

It was "Long Tom" Paine who said "Give me hickory or give me death!"

[A_Clay_Man]

Everything Ron said was resonable and accurate, but, absent a written request for the USGA's reply, the letter could be relegated to obscurity.

I must ask, as a dis-passionate observer, TOC wasn't designed with shot dictation in mind, was it?

Citing Ron's line;

Simple enough, but these steps do little to rescue the character and strength of our great old courses. Only a handful of the most celebrated golf courses remain capable of testing the best, by calling for the shots sought by the Architect. And those few also face extinction.

[TEPaul]

I believe Ron may've said the USGA didn't answer his letters but what he may've meant is they didn't address his concerns. The USGA may've sent Ron what Ward Foshay (past President of the USGA) used to call a "bed bug" letter. That's a letter where they ackinowledge the subject and explain they're looking into it and thank you for your interest and concern.  

I've got a few of those "bed bug" letters myself from the USGA some years ago. The reason I know what they are is for some reason the subject I wrote them about garnered a response from two different people in the USGA. The oddity was the letters from the two different people were virtually identical (obviously they were basiclly boilerplate)  

[T_MacWood]

I must ask, as a dis-passionate observer....

Adam
I think the word you were looking for was apathetic.

[A_Clay_Man]

And how would you characterize that remark?

Oneofthe big problems with you fanatics is you are so passionate.

All I've done is ask a few questions, looking at what has happened historically. I sense Your panties are all in a tizzy because the real culprits are long since dead and you want to blame the current board of directors.

It's a loser argument.

Apathety didn't come suddenly.

P.s. I'm shocked noone has pointed out that TOC wasn't designed.

[TEPaul]

To say the least, the articles in the latest USGA Newsletter on the history, science, philosophy, politics etc of the distance issue which first hit golf big-time just over 100 years ago are really interesting. They also appear to me to be very even-handed, historically accurate and interesting, and all of them seem to be by Gary Galyean.

The decision making between the USGA and R&A from 1928-1932 with the question and onset of the floater or balloon ball is interesting too. Just as with the COR issue relatively recently the R&A demurred on limiting distance by refusing to endorse the floater or Balloon ball. And then, it appears the golfing public was predominantly against it.

There were a number of significant voices that called for limiting the distance of the ball during the Haskell era just as there are significant voices calling for the limiting of the distance of the ball today.

This time, at this point, in any case, the USGA/R&A seems to be saying they believe the ball will not go "siginificantly" farther in the future because this time (2002-2005) they know so much more about the potential technologies of the golf ball than they ever have before (seems as if they may've said that in the past too, unfortunately).

But this time the "Joint Statement of Principles" (2002) says  they very likely will write additional rules or alter the present ones if the ball goes "significantly" farther for any reason in the future.

The OBVIOUS question, however, is what do they mean by "SIGNIFIICANTLY"? To date they have not said or even implied what that might be.  

Ron Prichard's calling for a "Tournament ball" 13 years ago is interesting. The "Joint Statement of Principles" says the USGA/R&A are committed to a unified standard for balls and Implements.

One of the problems to solve if a two-tiered ball standard was created would be the issue of equity in handicapping between the two types of balls. At the moment, I'm sure the USGA/R&A look at that as a real obstacle but for every problem there is always some potential solution.  

[Alfie]

Adam said ; "One of the big problems with you fanatics is you are so passionate."
..........

What in the hell is wrong with "PASSION "? And why the "fanatic" label for roll backers ? I think you're getting a wee passionate with your comments !

Alfie

[Alfie]

Tom Paul said ; "but for every problem there is always some potential solution."

.......

......and any problem must surely be "addressed" before any potential solution can be found  

Alfie

[Patrick_Mucci]

I must ask, as a dis-passionate observer, TOC wasn't designed with shot dictation in mind, was it?

Adam,

You can't equate a golf course that took centuries to evolve with the design and construction of modern day golf courses.
It's a flawed analogy.

And, if you look at the changes to TOC in the last 10 years I think you'll see that shot dictation was in peoples minds.[/color]

[Alfie]

Paul Richards,

Forgive me. I forgot to say thanks for posting those letters.
Thanks.

Alfie

[Patrick_Mucci]

Alfie,

If you can, get a copy of the October 2005 issue of "Inside the USGA"  

Please read it and tell us what you think about the article,
"Keeping Our Eye on the Ball" in the context of Ron's 1993 letter.

Thanks

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()