[Phil_the_Author]

A serious question...

So many are quick to jump all over the organization before even the 4th letter is pronounced. Yet they forget that the USGA actually has done many things that really are "good for the game."

Anyone care to mention some?

[wsmorrison]

Phil,

I'd be happy to, but first I sure would like to see some of the guys on here that constantly slam the USGA to answer you first.  I find it silly that the arrows fly from the same folks without acknowledging positive efforts.  These critics do this at almost every opportunity.  When someone asks for advice and consultation in an initiative every one of us should be getting behind (golf architecture archive and research center---there that's one answer as it is an excellent and ambitious "good for the game" act, not to mention expensive), they clam up and offer nothing.  Nothing but insults.  It is outrageous.  

[Dan Kelly]

I don't mean this to be a definitive list (and this isn't even a smart-aleck comment!), but it was my first thought:

Great TV commercials.

[Chuck Brown]

1.  Golf House is one.  If you've never been there, you should go when the addition is done.

2.  And I think they have done a great job, frankly, in running their championships.  That is distinct and apart from what they do to courses in order to prepare them for U.S. Opens.  (Much deserved criticism.)  If you go to a US Am, a USAPL, a Mid-Am, the Juniors, they are very well-run national championships that do the game proud.

3.  I also think that the handicap system is legitimately one of the great things in the game.

In all three of these things, there are many little things wrong and an enormous amount that is done extremely well.

[J_ Crisham]

Dan, My first thought  also! When I give deeper thought to the numerous national championships that are offered to every possible segment of our populace it is even greater proof of what the usga has done right. My only visit to FarHills was very informative and enjoyable. Are they perfect? No-but who is?

[Bart Bradley]

I am one who actually believes that they have done a good job of protecting the game through its rules...although obviously complex and at times confusing, the integrity of any game comes down to its rules.  I believe the USGA has tried hard to endorse, teach and enforce the rules of golf.

Bart

[Chuck Brown]

btw, on the subject of national championships: LPGA Hall of Famer Pat Bradley had a good question when I had the pleasure of playing in a charity pro-am with her once...

She asked why the USGA doesn't have a Senior Women's Open?  It has a women's counterpart in every other demographic group (Juniors, APL, Am, Mid-Am, Open) but no Senior Women's Open.

[Peter Pallotta]

Phil
my answer is always the same on this question. Maybe it's too sentimental. But the USGA inaugurated the Public Links Championship some 80 years ago, and in so doing I believe did more for the game of golf (public and private) than we can know. Symbolic gestures/messages can be very powerful vehicles for change when they come at the right time and the right place, and from the right source.

Peter

[Mark_Fine]

I happen to be a huge fan of the USGA Green Section guys.  I have read many of their reports for different clubs, presented with some of them at seminars, and they clearly want to do what is best for golf courses and golf course architecture.  They are good for the game of golf and carry weight in the industry.  U.S Open set-ups, however, and their negative influence on golf architecture remain a pet peeve of mine.  

[Jason Connor]

I believe the USGA has tried hard to endorse, teach and enforce the rules of golf.

"Tried" may be the key word here.

In their annual quiz, no one(!) got 100% this year.  

From Golf Digest ( http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HFI/is_9_58/ai_n21027949 )

"In 2005, the USGA received 2,456 quiz entries. Only 21 entrants were able to answer all questions correctly. In 2006, the USGA received 2,526 quiz entries. In that year those scoring 100 percent dropped to a mere six entrants. In 2007, the USGA received 1,260 quiz entries. No one answered all questions correctly this year."

"There are only 34 Rules in the Rules of Golf, but the last edition of the Decisions book has more than 1,200 Decisions on the rules. These Decisions carry the same weight as a "Rule" and have been adopted by the USGA as "Rules.""

It's a pretty zealous group who does these rules quizzes -- and they're open book!  Yet no USGA member got 100% this year.

The Rules of Golf could be drastically simplified.  1200 decisions?  Yet it's a game where the average junior golfer should be able to apply the rules to him or herself?

Especially in light of the seeming inequalities of when we watch pros get drops we'd never get on our home course (e.g. Tiger hitting it over the clubhouse at Firestone and getting a drop, not taking a stroke and distance unplayable) it seems the rules of golf could use a drastic simplifcation such that they would be more straightforward, more predictable, and easier to learn, remember and apply.

----

What has the USGA done right: Plenty.

The Publinks and Mid-Ams are especially great tournaments, as are most of their champsionships.  It's also great that many are free (e.g. the US Women's Amateur down the road from me this year at Crooked Stick).  I think it's great that a kid (or adult) interested in architecture could just walk onto Crooked Stick!

There work with green technology and soils and grasses is fantastic.  And the handicap system (with all its flaws) is fantastic.  The fact that two strangers of varying skills can play a fun match against each other is quite unique to golf.


 

[Chris Cupit]

The USGA insisted on an integrated first US Open in a century when it would have been easy to go the other way.  That set an excellent precedent.

[Phil_the_Author]

Mike, you asked, "Phil, Before I answer, can you tell us who is responsible for this, and what do you think of it?"

I am assuming, based upon the camera angle in the photograph, that you are refering to the trap, the green extension and the grass on the 8th hole of Bethpage Black.

They were part of Rees Jones' restoration of the course for the 2002 Open. In that sense, it is Tilly who is repsonsible for it and this is why.

The hole, as originally designed, extended much further back to the right than anyone realized as the surface had been lost due to poor maintenance over the years. A careful examination of the 1938 aerial shows the very back bunker being there with the green extending out to it. They found original bunker footprint beneath years of overgrowth when they looked for it. The bunker is where it was originally placed.

The tall fescue grasses can be seen in several photographs of both the 1938 & 1940 Sam Snead exhibition matches. Most people are unaware that he set the course record of 70 in 1938 playing with Lawson Little, Paul Runyon and Jimmy Hines (first person to reach #7 in 2 with a driver & 3-iron), 2 years before tying the record during the famous match that he lost to Byron nelson in 1940. They tied all square on the 18th, but Nelson was declared the winner as Snead parred 18 to match his course record with a 70 while Nelson birdied it to set a new course record of 69.

 

[JohnV]

Jason,

The rules quiz in the magazine is intentionally over the top.  The questions are on very obscure parts of the rules and get very tricky.  I've never submitted any answers and neither do a lot of people who are are smarter on the rules than I am because it is unrealistic.

Yes, there are 1200 decisions, but many of them are just because they get asked what are fairly obvious questions enough that they write a decision to answer it.  The question might be easily answerable by reading the appropriate rule or definition.

As an example, Rule 20-5 talks about the times when you have to make a stroke from where the previous stroke was made.  20-5(a) says that when that shot is to be played from the teeing ground, may play from anywhere and the ball may be teed.

Decision 20-5/1 talks about what happens if you whiff your tee shot and then hit the ball out of bounds with your next swing.  The question is " Can the player tee it anywhere on the teeing ground?"  The answer should be obvious from the rule, but obviously it wasn't to some people so they wrote a decision saying you could do it.  And how often does it happen anyway?

By the way, I didn't hunt for that one, I opened the book and it was the first decision I saw.

[Mike Sweeney]

Mike, you asked, "Phil, Before I answer, can you tell us who is responsible for this, and what do you think of it?"

I am assuming, based upon the camera angle in the photograph, that you are refering to the trap, the green extension and the grass on the 8th hole of Bethpage Black.

They were part of Rees Jones' restoration of the course for the 2002 Open. In that sense, it is Tilly who is repsonsible for it and this is why.

The hole, as originally designed, extended much further back to the right than anyone realized as the surface had been lost due to poor maintenance over the years. A careful examination of the 1938 aerial shows the very back bunker being there with the green extending out to it. They found original bunker footprint beneath years of overgrowth when they looked for it. The bunker is where it was originally placed.

The tall fescue grasses can be seen in several photographs of both the 1938 & 1940 Sam Snead exhibition matches. Most people are unaware that he set the course record of 70 in 1938 playing with Lawson Little, Paul Runyon and Jimmy Hines (first person to reach #7 in 2 with a driver & 3-iron), 2 years before tying the record during the famous match that he lost to Byron nelson in 1940. They tied all square on the 18th, but Nelson was declared the winner as Snead parred 18 to match his course record with a 70 while Nelson birdied it to set a new course record of 69.

Phil,

I took down that picture as it was too big for this board but thanks for that answer.

I did not reconize that bunker (somebody just sent it to me)as it has been awhile since I actually have played Bethpage. Clearly the USGA got Bethpage right for the US Open in 2002.

I am not crazy about all of the changes that I have read about here for 2009, especially the changes on #4 and the extreme stretching, which will of course take every 8 handicapper back to where Tiger plays and make rounds even longer at BB.

However that is GCA nitpicking, and The Black, The Red and probably Montauk have all benefitted  greatly from David Fay and the USGA.

They also let kids in for free to the US Open.

[Jim Nugent]

btw, on the subject of national championships: LPGA Hall of Famer Pat Bradley had a good question when I had the pleasure of playing in a charity pro-am with her once...

She asked why the USGA doesn't have a Senior Women's Open?  It has a women's counterpart in every other demographic group (Juniors, APL, Am, Mid-Am, Open) but no Senior Women's Open.

Market demand (lack of it)?  

[Rich Goodale]

I was going to agree wtih Peter re: the Publinx, but then I thought (always a dangerous process)....

...why did they have to have a separate championship for players who were not private club members?  There never seems to have been this sort of issue/problem at the home of golf.

Getting back to the question, I'll vote for:

1.  Club and ball testing.  They lead the world, even if they don't always do the right thing (IMVHO) with what they learn.
2.  Archiving.  Hopefully the initiatives that Tom Paul and others are involved with will make these archives more accessible to everybody.
3.  Being nice-nice to the R&A.  It must be tough to be the dog when the tail wagging it is a bunch of geezers in a museum up against the German Ocean.
4.  Agronomic research.  I do wonder, however, whether or not the USGA-spec green has been a good or bad thing.  Those who might know, please enlighten me.
5.  The US Open.  Goofy as the set ups can be, at least they are trying hard to showcase the best courses in the US, as well as expand the rota to (relatively) affordable courses.  And, the championship is "itself," as the Irish would say.
6.  Real Estate Speculation.  I assume they made a bundle on the Russian Tea Room....

....oops, I think I've migrated onto the wrong list.....

[Jim_Kennedy]

-all the above
-grants, fellowships and iniatives
-First Tee
-etc., etc., etc.,

Rich,
Since 1922 the Publinx has given the everyday golfer a chance to compete where he or she might not otherwise have that chance, if for no other reason than handicap index.  It was either one man's idea to offer up a championship in response to the swelling number of public/municipal courses and golfers, or......what do you think?

[Phil_the_Author]

Richard,

Regarding the Publinks Championship you asked, "I was going to agree wtih Peter re: the Publinx, but then I thought (always a dangerous process).... why did they have to have a separate championship for players who were not private club members?"

Here is a great example of how it is important to understand the history of the national championships held by the USGa.

Both the Open and Amateur championships had a very different method for entry into the cpmpetition than how it is done today.

Club champion's, person's representing association's and regions and even cities were sent to compete on behalf of those who sent them. This continued even into the teens in some cases. For example, it was as a representative of Philadelphia that Tilly played in the 1910 Open at the Philly Cricket Club. He finished as the 2nd low amateur 25 shots behind.

When the Public Links Championship was started, it too was very different in both the entry requirements and competition than it is today. There was both an individual and a team competition, with cities from across America sending 4-man teams to compete on their behalf. It was the first national team championship that the USGA conducted that included teams sent by location rather than golf clubs. This was then an "Open" team championship.

[Rich Goodale]

Jim

There may have been a need for the Publinx in those dark days when you had to belong to a private club to get a handicap (was it really so in 1922?), but today it is irrelevant, as anybody can get a handicap, from various sources.  In fact, all the Publinx does today is segregate the private players from the public players.  Is that a good thing in the 21st century?

Rich

[Jim_Kennedy]

Rich,
Phil summed it up well.

The Publinx allows an index to 8.4, quite a bit higher than any of their other championships.  

Why was the Mid-Am created, in response to all the future touring pros invading the Am.

Having tournaments that appeal to different segments of the golfing population isn't ridiculous. is it?

[Rich Goodale]

Phil

Thanks for the nearly simultaneous post.  I learned something.

Jim

Thanks too.  I agree that both the Publinx and the MidAm were born with the highest of intentions, but given the realities of today I'm not sure that they still really fulfill them.

1.  The mid-Am could be a lot truer to the original ideals if they eliminated reinstated pros from the field.  They got rid of the wannabe-pros through raising the age limit, but just made the field easier for the usedtobe-pros (or even reallystillare-pros, e.g. College Coaches).

2.  It's cool that the Publinx is open to 8.4 index players (i.e. 10+ handicaps on hard courses), but do any of them really have a chance against the flat bellies from the College Tour, or even Michelle Wie?

If I ran the USGA I'd find a way to create a "Real" Amateur tournament, but only if they really think that it is important.

[Phil_the_Author]

Rich,

"If I ran the USGA I'd find a way to create a "Real" Amateur tournament, but only if they really think that it is important."

Are you saying that if you ran the USGA you would get rid of the U.S. Amateur Championship?  

[Jim_Kennedy]

Rich,
Does any golfer without a + handicap stand a chance in any USGA championship? Lightning could strike Walter Mitty squarely on the noggin though, and that keeps registration full.

 

[Rich Goodale]

Of course not, Phil!

I'd re-name it the "USGA Semi-Pro Tournament for Flat-Bellied Kids who are raking in $30,000+/year in scholarships and free equipment and Older Guys Who are Rich Enough to Play and Practice Every Day and/or Used-to-be Touring Pros who Lost their Bottle" and create another one for the real amateurs.  I'd call it...

The US Amateur!

[Tom Huckaby]

It would be great to have a national championship for guys who actually worked for a living and thus have to squeeze in their golf when they can... in fact I'd also like a flight for those with kids under 15 years old, and separate flights for multiple kids under 12... and a separate flight for those with teenagers and babies at the same time....

Then I might kick some ass!

I too think the US Am and MidAm as currently constructed have little relevance to the common amateur golfer.  But then again, the common amateur golfer perhaps isn't SUPPOSED to have a fighting chance in those - they are events for the elite.

TH

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()