What the USGA is doing right

[johnk]

For all the grief they get, let's give them a LOT of credit:

Prairie Dunes looks great on TV, and is about
as much a testament to good architecture as is possible
for the general golfing public.  It took a fair amount
of courage, I think to go there.  Way to go!

Ran said he was interested in which will look better on TV:
PD or Muirfield.  I'll take PD from the shots I've seen so far.  It looks awesome.  Old Open videos of Muirfield on TGC tend
to leave it looking flat and incomprehensible.

C'mon, on top of choosing Bethpage and making politically
correct hay out of it's muni status, Prairie Dunes is an
example of the USGA getting it's bread and butter right.

BTW, the Senior Open wasn't too bad either.

[A_Clay_Man]

40 Million from the Black...

Not to shabby for the protectors of the rules, ayuh?

[GeoffreyC]

Adam- More important then the $40 million is the FACT that the people/mobs (certainly not patrons   ) at the US Open LOVED it that our golf course was on display at the biggest/most important tournament of the year (for the US golfers -with all respect to THE Open championship). On top of that the USGA negotiated for and payed for work that made the golf course infinitely better for those same people/mobs to play 99.9999% of the time the course isn't in use for tournament play.  KUDOs to the USGA for that.

I think in some respects the womens US Open sites can be better and more imaginative then the mens open sites.  How about Merion for the gals?  How about Pasatiempo?  

[A_Clay_Man]

I wonder what the number of spectators for the seniors and the women are and will be. Surely they can't be as high as the Open itself, could it?

Assuming not, A plethora of courses should be possible. My favorite would be BWR (original).

 I also wonder/question about the choice of Whistling Straits for the 04 PGA.

[TEPaul]

I don't expect much sympathy for the USGA on anything from the contributors to GCA--a sentiment I don't happen to agree with despite some of their shortcomings.

The only way to help the USGA's stature on this site is to get Pat Mucci fully wound up into one of his anti-bias campaigns!

Where are you Pat? The USGA needs you to defend them on this site! Tell these mean spirited contributors that the blue coats are people too who have feelings and need to be protected from crass criticism as much as Rees and the Faz!

[Paul Turner]

Developing just about the best golf library going with an enormous collection if club histories; and after letting me visit so often, they'll never do anything wrong in my book  

Also, I know they've been great with helping architects research restoration projects.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

You rang sir ?

Yes, I'll commend them, but first,

A clayman, the USGA has nothing to do with site selection by the PGA.

The revenue the USGA gets for the OPEN, basically funds every other USGA event.

Had the USGA had adequate funds available years ago, when the square groove controversy and croquet putting were topical, we might not have experienced the high-tech arms race that has undermined classic architecture and the Game, but that's just my opinion.

The USGA has done an excellent job over the last 100 or so years protecting the integrity and continuity of the game.

You can choose to look at a single frame at a specific point in time or you can look at the entire film, which has spanned 100 years, and for the life of that entity, I think they have done a commendable job.

Like any organization, especially one governed the way the USGA is, mistakes will be made over the years.
One hopes that the leadership will correct those mistakes and continue the game on the path that brought it to where it is today.

TEPaul,

People moan and complain about specific issues, but none of those same people ever offer constructive solutions to the problem or the issue.

To those I say, "what do you suggest they do to solve the problem ? "Speak now or forever hold your peace !"

[Dave_Miller]

TEPaul and Patrick:

I will join in as a defender of the USGA.  

I speak as one who is in the unique position of being the General Chairman for one of their 13 National Championships.

 For the past 18 months I have worked very closely with the tournament operations personnel.  They are simply terrific.  Easy to work with and when they ask for something they are thoughtful and specific as to why such and such is needed.  There is nothing arbitrary about it.  I realize this will be more demanding and challenging when setting up and holding the Open but these people truly have the best interests of the game at heart.

Count me as a defender of the "Blue Coats"

Fairways and Greens,

Dave

[Tony Ristola]

Patrick:The USGA & R&A has done a wonderful job except where it matters most today...providing a defense for the onslaught of technologies which has shrunk golf courses drastically.  They certainly cannot be accused of forward or lateral thinking.  

Mark Fine quoted Pete Dye as saying: "Because the collective brain power of the USGA and the ball manufacturers is about that of a weed"!  

I agree with only half of Mr. Dye's statement...the manufacturers are not in business to do anything but exploit the rules to the maximum, just as in any business, and such companies have no role in the defense of the game...that is the job of the USGA & R&A.

More Mark Fine quoting Mr. Dye:
"Pete talked at length about the ball and how it is ruining the game of golf.  At the same time he said he is a fool to think they will do anything about it."

I'll admit, according to Mr. Dye I qualify as a fool...or at least was.  Perhaps just an optimist, hoping someone with guts will do the right thing.

The "constructive solutions" are known.  It requires the USGA & R&A to behave like the defenders and Leaders they claimed to be, but to date they have done nothing...zero, zip, nada, nix.  

Credit...OK they set up a golf course for a tournament without butchering it...fine...but when it gets to the pressing issues of the day, to the core of the game, to stepping up and doing their job on the tough issues...they get no credit because they have done nothing.  They have not led, but slept, deferred and seemingly have accepted defeat...Pete Dye has.

If you cannot or will not take on the most pressing issues...you are not doing your job...you are negligent, and setting up 1000 courses decently won't make up for the fact the game is being destroyed because these people, this group of individuals, failed to do their primary job.

Some may praise the USGA, but my grade: F

[A_Clay_Man]

Pat- Thank you for showing how lateral a thinker you are, once again. My reference to the PGA was going beyond the usga and more about the argument that Kohler can't support the largess needed to pulll off such an event. Which has been the tag from day one of BWR.
While I've never seen WS, I find it difficult to believe it's better than the the original BWR. As a matter of fact my sources tell me it ain't.

[TEPaul]

Tony Ristola:

You're no doubt correct that the USGA has been negligent in controlling equipment in the face of the atmosphere amongst the manufacturers--there's little question of that!

The thing I don't like about your attitude is you seem to think the manufacturers themselves have zero responsibility in all this. Maybe you even think that's the way it's always been because it's business.

I can tell you that is just not so! I known that forever because my father worked in the business and he knew about everyone in the business and in regulatory golf too and in those days none of the manufacturers would have dreamed of doing what some these companies are doing today. Not that long ago the manufacturing people and the regulatory people were basically friends and they were basically on the same page.

Back then none of the manufacuturers would have dreamed of confronting and threatening the regulatory bodies like they are today. It wasn't very long ago that the likes of an Eli Callaway could not have existed. Most of those manufacturers had a feel for the game and its future--but not so anymore. These people today are not much more than the indirect powers of Wall St.

I realize the USGA and R&A have to wake up and deal with today's atmosphere and deal with the manufacturers differently than they ever have--they have to begin to understand the world of the manufacturers has changed dramatically and figure out a way to deal with it--something that they really didn't have to do in the past.

But if you think, as you appear to, that the USGA can simply say to them--that's enough--you're dreaming, in my opinion! What that would inevitably do is destroy golf much sooner rather than later.

What the USGA and R&A's mission is now is to get these manufacturers to understand the significance of uncontrolled technological advances and aggressiveness towards the regulatory bodies rules and regs and how that's a real peril to the long term health and prosperity of the game and its architecture. That understanding (the manufacturers) is the key to the long term survival of the game and yes to the manufacturers long term business health too!

That's the only way with this new aggressive atmosphere amongst the manufacturers! The regulatory bodies have to get them onto the same page in understanding the future of equipment and the game. If they don't do that and simply tell them to cease and desist without first preparing a logical way to do it the manufacturers are just going to tell them to go F...themselves and if you think enough people to make a difference are going to follow the regulatory bodies and not the manufacturers I think you're really mistaken.

The USGA clearly has to act--but in my opinion there's clearly a way to do it and there's clearly a way not to do it. One way has a chance of working the other way will very likely just blow up in their faces!

And for God's sake try to understand that the manufacturers do have some responsibility in this! They took some responisbility once and there's no real reason they can't do it again!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I think the gentleman's understanding ceased when the square groove controversy and litigation began.

From that moment on, the relationship went from symbiotic to adversarial, steadily accelerating and increasing the distance between the two parties views/position.

[Tony Ristola]

TEPaul:

I've taken each quote and written a response.

"The thing I don't like about your attitude is you seem to think the manufacturers themselves have zero responsibility in all this. Maybe you even think that's the way it's always been because it's business."

Manufacturers responsibilities are: 1. Company survival (if in trouble). 2. investors and or shareholders.  It is not complicated.  Defending the game doesn't even register on the list.  Sure manufacturers want to be active participants in the game, assisting its promotion, but there are rules for equipment, and if a company wants to produce this stuff...legal or not...I say let them, it's been done for decades.  If the legal limits are no longer working for the game, then set new ones, and only the REGULATORY AGENCIES can do this.  I would not even begin to think the manufacturers would assist, want to assist or even condone such actions by the regulatory body...why should they...it is not in their best interests (company or investor).

Where is MacGregor Golf today?  A shadow of its former self.  Powerbilt?  Hogan is part of Spalding.  The list of obsolete firms is long.  What about the company that signed Price for 25 million?  Don't you think any of these companies would like to have had a breakthrough product rather than be nonexistent?

"none of the manufacturers would have dreamed of doing what some these companies are doing today."

You are right...charging 500 dollars a club was out of their dream range.  It is a different landscape today.  That is the reality.  It's not a small shop controlled by Hogan, Titliest, MacGregor, Spalding, Powerbilt, and Wilson...but big...worldwide business.  Except for golf course architecture, what industry does not provide better and more service, better products at better prices than it did 50 years ago? 25 years ago? 10 years ago?

"Back then none of the manufacuturers would have dreamed of confronting and threatening the regulatory bodies like they are today. It wasn't very long ago that the likes of an Eli Callaway could not have existed. Most of those manufacturers had a feel for the game and its future--but not so anymore. These people today are not much more than the indirect powers of Wall St."

That was back then, but you do agree it is big business.  Perhaps the close relationships prevented action from taking place 20 years ago...ever think of that?  

"I realize the USGA and R&A have to wake up and deal with today's atmosphere and deal with the manufacturers differently than they ever have--they have to begin to understand the world of the manufacturers has changed dramatically and figure out a way to deal with it--something that they really didn't have to do in the past."

You make these guys at USGA HQ sound arrogant and out of touch with the above remark.  They only have to lead.  There is nothing new with that.  

"But if you think, as you appear to, that the USGA can simply say to them--that's enough--you're dreaming, in my opinion! What that would inevitably do is destroy golf much sooner rather than later."

Destroy golf!  Ugh.  

I'm not dreaming.  The USGA & R&A need to justify whatever action they take, but they can revise existing rules without a communal lovefest to make everyone's feelings known.  That is time wasting Dr. Feelgood BS.  Do the science and draw conclusions.  Let the manufacturers know what will happen and give them time to reply.  Then review their claims.  If they leak like a siv, and the science remains sound...revise the rules and drop the gavel.  If they don't like it...see you in court.  That is the basic outline, but need not be anymore complicated than that.

"What the USGA and R&A's mission is now is to get these manufacturers to understand the significance of uncontrolled technological advances..."

Like they do not know?!  They know, but why should they care?  Really?  Once again, their job is not to defend the game (that is the job of the USGA & R&A) but to create profits and beat the competition to the next great punch...and the more massive the profits the better.  It allows more ´R&D to find the next big one.

"...and aggressiveness towards the regulatory bodies rules and regs and how that's a real peril to the long term health and prosperity of the game and its architecture. That understanding (the manufacturers) is the key to the long term survival of the game and yes to the manufacturers long term business health too!"

ypu have it backwards...The regulatory bodies BY THEIR NEGLIGENCE to address the situation ARE THE EXISTING THREAT to the long term health of the game, not the manufacturers.  

If the ball is rolled back to 1980 standards, all the flamethrowing in the world by manufacturers would not change the fact that the upcoming era of 7,600 yard courses would come to a pretty abrupt halt. The manufacturers could spit 200 yard flames, but if the rules are sound, (upheld in court if need be) the game is also sound.  The rest is a sideshow, and I cannot imagine manufacturers wasting investors money on a complaint campaign...a court case yes, but after the case is settled, the story is over.

"That's the only way with this new aggressive atmosphere amongst the manufacturers!"

You define what as aggressive?  Exactly what have manufacturers done which is aggressive?  Is someone going to court to defend their rights aggressive?  When two ruling bodies cannot get on the same page? When rules have multiple interpretations...like box grooves did?  

"The regulatory bodies have to get them onto the same page in understanding the future of equipment and the game. If they don't do that and simply tell them to cease and desist without first preparing a logical way to do it the manufacturers are just going to tell them to go F...themselves and if you think enough people to make a difference are going to follow the regulatory bodies and not the manufacturers I think you're really mistaken."

I answered the first part above... but are you saying the masses will disregard the rules of golf?  I don't believe that for a NY minute...we've gone over this one before...the traditions and history are too long and ingrained.

"The USGA clearly has to act--but in my opinion there's clearly a way to do it and there's clearly a way not to do it. One way has a chance of working the other way will very likely just blow up in their faces!"

I am for a Scientific approach, Scientific Methodology for getting to the bottom of this...to do anything else would be folly, but what has the USGA done?  Zip.

"And for God's sake try to understand that the manufacturers do have some responsibility in this! They took some responisbility once and there's no real reason they can't do it again!"

TEPaul I will never accept the manufacturers having a role in this...it is not their role...not their job, and here is where we differ big time.  You have a Utopian view of this issue...somewhat socialist...That for the good of The State (USGA/Game), the Collective (manufacturers) must refrain from making golf equipment too good so it does not make the courses we love obsolete.  This will never work, but sound principled LEADERSHIP, based on sound facts has had an exceptional success rate.  

Manufacturers have no responsibility except to produce safe equipment.  It doesn't have to be conforming.  Their responsibility is not for the "Collective Good of Golf" but to those who have risked their money by  investing in the firm.  Those who have risked their capital and expect a return for their investment...many of those individuals are non-golfers.  

I would love to see a CEO explain to investors..."The reason nobody is buying our product is because we miscalculated...you see...ahhh...we went the Swedish route...took the ahhh...moral high ground and produced balls and clubs which didn't propel the ball or do not fly as far as the competition...but they were in terrific looking...so far...but...ahhh...ahhh...this was a miscalcullation and we (almost inaudible now) lost 75 million this past year (75 million of equipment nobody would EVER buy)...ahhh...  

If Callaway, or any other company neglects this or fails to move with the times, produce the best possible tools for the trade...they are destined to go the way of MacGregor...once known as The Greatest Name in Golf, now just a small fragment of its former self.  

Manufacturers manufacture, regulatory bodies lead the direction of the game...very different purposes...confusing the two only distorts and complicates the discussion...but TEPaul...I won't be fooled.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tony Ristola,

You're correct, the factions have different goals, and different responsibilities, which conflict.

However,  It was less than a year ago when many on this site refused to acknowledge that there was an "equipment" dilema.

I think many would conceed that the last five (5) years has seen a quantum leap in high-tech advances.

One of the problems is the very structure of the USGA.
It's a volunteer organization, with a rotating or changing executive corp.  It's difficult to build continuity with that form of government or leadership.  A revolving door, non-paid, executive group is not as disciplined or determined as typical corporate leaders, whose business is their primary if not sole focus.

One organization can act and react quicker because,
one man controls it, not a committee.

Usually, one man has a firm mindset.   A singleness of purpose.
Not so with a committee.

One recent individual appeared to have thrown down the gauntlet for the USGA.  How did that fare

The problem, and the leadership you seek, isn't as simple to come by when an organization is governed by a committee.
They are at a clear disadvantage.

Just look at all the statues commemorating committees throughout this great land of ours, how many have you seen ?

[TEPaul]

Tony:

I only read your response to the first quote of mine before responding. I so completely disagree with what you say in your response about the manufacturers, their responsiblities to the game (or lack of them as you say), their understanding of the health and prosperty of the future of the game (and yes their own future health and prosperity) as to be almost total on each and every point.

What you appear to cite as "reality" or "the way it is" or whatever, to me IS the problem that has been most of the current adverserial mess. That has got to change somehow--the USGA has got to work to make that change somehow! I think they can do it if they'd see the light--if they'd all see the light in that regard (including the manufacturers)! Frankly, there's nothing wrong at all with a combined and unified testing facility (with combined test protocols) to be shared by the manufacturers and the USGA! Just think what that alone could accomplish instead of the way they have been doing things to date which has been independent and adverserial.

You've defined your position very well on this issue Tony--it just happens that I could not possibly disagree with it more! No problem--differing opinions are OK! I do feel though that if the USGA does what you suggest (and there's certain no guarantee they will do that or anything at all, for that matter) they will then lose any control of B&I regulation that they have heretofore enjoyed!

[TEPaul]

Tony:

I did read the rest of your post and you're right, we've been over all this before.

Firstly, you really don't have to explain to me what the manufacturers are and have become and how that's changed.

But how the USGA deals with it at this point and our views on how that can be most effective in today's atmosphere are almost totally different and frankly divergent in almost every single way.

What you are suggesting that the USGA do--by developing new and different testing protocols which are supposed to result in improved equipment regulations--something they call the "review and comment" period is being done and ongoing as we speak!

But in my opinion, the regulatory bodies need to vastly improve their working relationship with the manufacturers and an effort to collaborate on testing would certainly be a good place to start! But they have to sit down and talk first, something that they aren't even thinking about at the moment. Ironically the PGA Tour (of all entities) is beginning to fill that void in that regard but I can't see how even they will be successful in that without the cooperation of the regulatory bodies and the manufacturers!

We've been through this USGA scenario that you suggest once before which is basically; "OK, enough of this and now we're reasserting ourselves" with Buzz Taylor about five years ago and the world can see how well that worked in today's atmosphere! It was an utter disaster! Why do it again without trying to at least dial down the adverserialness with negotiation, cooperation and some common understanding of the future of the game as to how equipment relates to it?

They can certainly lay down the law as you suggest again (I remind you however it's not the law only voluntary rules and regs) and if the manufacturers even bother to go to court this time I would be somewhat surprised.

Callaway pulled out of their ridiculously aggressive and ill-founded law suit as it was probably apparent to them they wouldn't win and that course of action suggested to me that the next time they'll just forego the courts and opt for the far less costly scenario of foregoing compliance with USGA rules and regs altogether! And if they do that, Tony, there's not a regulatory body, including the USGA, nor a court in the land that can stop them!

So where does that leave us and where does that leave golf's equipment and the game? In a far worse place than we are right now, in my opinion!

Sure the game has a history of complying with regulatory rules and regs and in some areas that will obviously continue but we've enjoyed pretty much total compliance to those rules and regs for almost 100 years and why would we want that to change at this point?

Some people even say; "We don't care if all those yahoos out there don't comply with the single set of golf equipment rules and regs anymore--we don't need those people", but those that say that don't work in golf organization either and they're obviously failing to see the mess it would create in golf organization of all kinds that would have a real impact on the game itself.

Golf just doesn't need that fractionalized atmosphere which is exactly what it would get if it followed your general suggestions, in my opinion.

Ironically, the regulatory bodies might just try to follow the basic scenario that you suggest and I think it's dangerous and a disaster waiting to happen and therefore I think they're as wrong in that scenario as I think you are.

But we have been over all this before, you cited your opinions well and I cited mine--there's not much more to discuss--so let's just agree to respectfully disagree--and I do mean respectfully!

It's sure OK to disagree, so let's sit back and see what'll happen--except I am going to try to offer my proposal to them outlining a potential scenario for negotiation, cooperation, (certainly testing cooperation and collaboration) and a more unified understanding of where golf's going in the future and the roll of equipment for the future of the game!

[TEPaul]

Tony and Pat:

By the way, if you think the Ping/USGA and Ping/PGA Tour lawsuit was in any way akin to the aggressiveness of the likes of Callaway and their legal saber-rattling on the part of a manufacturer (Ping), you'd be wholly wrong in that, in my opinion!

The circumstances behind the Ping lawsuit were entirely different than the legal saber-rattling on the part of today's manufacturers, certainly on Karsten Solheim's part!

The inability of the USGA to avoid going to court in the Ping suit was all about the USGA's misunderstanding of simple cooperation and negotiation and inability to clearly state to a manufacturer exactly what the details of their rules and regs were all about. The sad truth is they probably didn't even know or understand those details themselves at that point!!

This only means to me that this time they just have to open commonsensical lines of negotiation, cooperation and collaboration with any manufacturer in this universe of equipment rules and regs! It's completely commonsensical to do that so these kinds of things (Ping's suits) won't need to happen again.

By the way, the PING suits were negotiated settlements and what came out of those settlements, and at the suggestion of Karsten Solheim, was some of the most clear thinking and futuristic planning I'm aware of!

Matter of fact, there was an entity set up as a result of that settlement that with a little enhancement today may very well be the entity able to accomplish the very thing I'm suggesting for this equipment mess, at this point!

Solheim's approach to this was vastly different than the likes of Callaway, so different in fact, if you even knew what it was you'd probably find it hard to believe!

[Tony Ristola]

TEPaul:

I was pretty astonished by the slam Callaway campaign here when the ERC came out.  Manufacturers are responsible for producing the best products they can, serving the customer, investor and creating a fitting environment for the employees to work.  They have no role what so ever with rules and regulations.  If they do, I think they are going about the business in the wrong manner.  They know or will know the facts using Scientific Methodology, and can make decisions based on this info as how to best protect the game.  Once the regs are reached they can let the manufacturers say their 10 cents worth, evaluate and move forward.  The USGA's job is to lead not be led.

The manufacturers have no role except to produce product...your view that they do is a modern one and found to be fomented in institutions of higher learning...and 8 years of Clinton/Gore.  There has been a survey of business students recently and this is what we find:

"Only 23% of the business students rank "providing clear and accurate business statements to stockholders and creditors" first. The rest prefer goals like "recruiting a diverse workforce," 38%; "minimizing environmental pollution," 18%; and "not exporting jobs or moving plants," 18%. Three of those four have nothing to do with running a successful business. Seventy-three percent responded that the view of ethics most often transmitted was the politically correct view that what is right and wrong depends on differences in individual values and cultural diversity."

Your take that the manufacturers need be coddled fits right in with the above...it is a very touchy feely approach with no benefit.  

For what reason do the manufaturers need be consulted?   The USGA doesn't have the funds for research?  The do not have the technical know-how?  

Why let the inmates run or even have their fingers in there creating law for the asylum?  You want a weak USGA...just let these guys in the door and you'll have to do it forever.  A strong USGA in my eyes is a wholly independent USGA...one capable of steering its own course for the game.  Consultation with manufacturers...again in my eyes is a cop-out.

[Tony Ristola]

TEPaul

Hit the release button too soon, so the first paragraph is a little confusing.

I was pretty astonished by the slam Callaway campaign here when the ERC came out.  Manufacturers are responsible for producing the best products they can, serving the customer, investor and creating a fitting environment for the employees to work.  They have no role what so ever with rules and regulations.  If manufacturers do have a role, I think the USGA are going about the business in the wrong manner.  They know or will discover the facts using Scientific Methodology, and can make decisions based on this info as how to best protect the game (I would be astonished if they couldn't have come up with a solution 5 years ago).  Once the regs are reached they can let the manufacturers say their 10 cents worth, evaluate and move forward.  The USGA's job is to lead not be led.

The manufacturers have no role except to produce product...your view that they do is a modern one and found to be fomented in institutions of higher learning...and 8 years of Clinton/Gore.  There has been a survey of business students recently and this is what we find:

"Only 23% of the business students rank "providing clear and accurate business statements to stockholders and creditors" first. The rest prefer goals like "recruiting a diverse workforce," 38%; "minimizing environmental pollution," 18%; and "not exporting jobs or moving plants," 18%. Three of those four have nothing to do with running a successful business. Seventy-three percent responded that the view of ethics most often transmitted was the politically correct view that what is right and wrong depends on differences in individual values and cultural diversity."

Your take that the manufacturers need be coddled fits right in with the above...it is a very touchy feely approach with no benefit.  

For what reason do the manufaturers need be consulted?   The USGA doesn't have the funds for research?  The do not have the technical know-how?  

Why let the inmates run or even have their fingers in there creating law for the asylum?  You want a weak USGA...just let these guys in the door and you'll have to do it forever.  A strong USGA in my eyes is a wholly independent USGA...one capable of steering its own course for the game.  Consultation with manufacturers...again in my eyes is a cop-out.

[TEPaul]

TonyR:

You and I have been discussing this subject for a long time now. Our opinions are on here and are on record--so there is not much reason to rehash them.

Basically we could hardly disagree more.

[TEPaul]

Well, maybe we don't need the USGA--certainly Eli Callaway didn't seem to think so. Golf has done pretty well with them for the last 100 years but maybe for the next 100 years we should see if the game could do better without them.

Someone might replace them? Not very likely! If they're cast into irrelevancy like the old USLTA in tennis about 35 years ago then the manufacturers could control golf on their own and we could all have fun!

Too bad William Flynn isn't still around--he always did want to build an 8,000yd course.

[John Bernhardt]

I feel the USGA has far surpassed any other major sports governing organization on consistant leadership. I feel it has generally provided integrity, maintained the good of the game in its positions both in acts of commission and ommision. That does not mean there are not real problems which people such as those on this site should keep on the forfront of our discussions also for the good of the game. the organization should always desire input and avoid nepotism as well as arrogance to benifit the the good of the game which is not always easy.

[TEPaul]

Shivas;

I think you're right that maybe 3/4 of golfers don't really know all that the USGA does and has done!

That doesn't exactly mean that the USGA is becoming irrelevant to many aspects to do with amateur golf it just means that a lot of people don't really know what they do.

However, if you took them out of the equation, those 3/4 of golfers that didn't know what they did will find out because they won't be around to do it anymore--and those golfers will probably not be all that happy about it!

I've always been a bit ambivalent about the USGA myself but they do serve a very useful function in many ways and I think it's ludicrous how much they seem to have become the organization that so many people love to hate.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

You shouldn't be upset or surprised.

The perspective of golf, the gentleman's game has been radically altered since your dad's competitive days.

A generation of "ME, MYSELF and I" has replaced the  generation that survived the Depression and Wars.
It's a different culture today.

The next time you're playing a match against someone with
17 clubs in their bag, mention it to them, and watch the reaction toward you and the USGA.

The next time you're playing a match against someone and they mark their ball and make a first down that the Green Bay Packers would be proud of, mention it to them and watch the reaction toward you and the USGA.

When some people are given rulings they don't like, they rant and rave about how rules and the USGA are so unfair and ridiculous.  How did they come up with this rule, etc., etc..  They rant and rave about everything that is a consequence of their shot, and never look at how there own execution of the shot got them in to the situation in the first place.  
It is always somebody elses fault.  
And, who better to direct their anger toward then The USGA.

I'm with John Bernhardt and others who think they have done an outstanding job over the last 100 years or so.

And...... I really don't want to play with anyone who knowingly violates or ignores the rules of golf, and etiquette.

[Dr._Katz]

Mr. Mucci:

Well said.  See, I told you the treatments would eventually begin to enhance your communications skills.  Let's hope the progress continues.