The USGA's responsibility to architecture?

[TEPaul]

Frankly, George Pazin made the most logical recommendation of all on the question of the "USGA Open set-up", whether it should continue as an interesting and "different" type championship "test" and how that should be viewed in the clearly pernicious influence it creates with other courses that thoughtlessly copy the "Open set up" even for all levels of  memberhip play.

George simply said the USGA should probably just say on the US Open telecasts that not everyone should even think of copying their type of "Open set up".

But that brings up a far broader and far more fundamental and important question!

The USGA clearly believes it has a central responsibility to the game of golf and preserving many of the good things in golf!

But should it have a responsibility to golf's architecture? And if it should, what exactly would that be?

[RJ_Daley]

No, they should stick with regulating the game from the ball and impliments aspect, and let that relate on their own technological merits to the architecture.  They have every right, and it should be their own mission to dictate the set-up from a conditioning stand point on what kind of course they want to present for their tournaments.  I think that is a function as important with relationship with the superintendents as it is with their special relationship with Rees Jones.  They should be cautious not to go onto any classic courses like Riviera and dictate design changes to host their infrequent competitions.  They should have a set rota of courses where all concerned form some sort of consensus that remodelling to host the USGA events is acceptable to all parties, and is not butchering a course beloved and played everyday by the general members and public.  Bethpage and Torrey can fit the bill if they decide that like the MDs oath, "first do no harm".  I think they succeded at Bethpage.

[TEPaul]

RJ:

Did you know that in the late 1920s William Flynn, writing for  the USGA's green section directly and distinctly recommended that the USGA should keep their hands and recommendations off of other people's courses and that what they should actually do is build their own courses for their own tournament venues and then they could feel free to do all the experimenting, altering or whatever else they chose to do?

Presumably Flynn meant to build those courses if they took his recommendation!

[GeoffreyC]

Well said

Tom Paul-  Did you know that Flynn also proposed what is probably very similar to the USGA philosophy on course set up.

He writes

"Placing a premium on accuracy with due consideration for length should be the aim of all men who design golf courses, for accuracy in the play signifies skill and skill is generally the master of brute force... the object should be to provide holes of proper length to accomodate the more important clubs after the drive has been made. It naturally follows if this play is carried out that holes of character can be had... carry while slightly less valuable then accuracy is important in htat it promotes boldness.  Length may be considered least important but this becomes quite a factor when a player is able to mold all three tests together."" (sound like anyone in the news lately?)

[BCrosby]

I would not care a single iota about golf course architecture if it didn't have a direct impact on my enjoyment of the game.  Golf is invariably a richer and more interesting game when played on well-conceived golf courses. That's why architecture matters to me.

In a similar vein, the quality of the golfing experience for golfers generally should be a central mission of the USGA.  (If it isn't, then I don't know what the USGA thinks it is doing when they show up for work everyday.)

As part of that overall mission, the USGA should encourage the construction, maintenance and renovation of well-conceived golf course designs that make the game more fun and attractive to its constituent members -  the handicap player.  Or at a minumum provide information to its members (both individuals and clubs) that would give some rough guidance.

That means that they need to develop opinions about gca that go beyond merely setting up courses that "identify the best player."

It means that the USGA has to actually come up with some coherent thoughts about appropriate designs for the players that comprise 99.999% of their membership.

The USGA could be of enormous help when greens chairmen seek guidance for the renovation or maintenance of their courses.  To date, the USGA has showcased nothing but monster courses like BB. These courses have a simple, overriding design goal.  Protect par against the best players in the world. Those kinds of courses have become models because for the typical greens chairman there are no other models.  

Try telling a greens chairman that he should spend $1mm to renovate his course using design principles from a course he's never seen called, say, NGLA vs. using the design principles the USGA puts on TV at BB or Olympic or Congressional.  Which route he is going to take?    

To date, I've seen no evidence that the USGA understands or cares about  any of this.

I am not suggesting that the USGA get into the design business.  I am suggesting two things. First, that they should make it clear that USGA championship setups are unique and have no (or very limited) application to other courses.  Second, they should become a much better source for historical information about architecture. They need to archive architectural information that can be made available to constituent clubs.  Clubs can then use the information as they see fit. Right now there is virtually no architectural easily available from sources other than the tournaments on TV that the greens chairman saw over the weekend.

Bob    

[JWalker]

TEPaul's question " The USGA's responsibility to architecture?" This is a terrific question. BCrosby's response IMO covers it all. BCrosby, e-mail your reponse to the USGA's website immediately! The U.S. Open's course set-up to identify the best player that given week works (read today's headline of any sports section of any newspaper in America for proof) but really has no other place in golf.  

[golfarc]

The USGA should stay out of golf architecture.  They have problems administering the programs under their charter now.  Adding golf architecture to their menu would only serve the USGA, which is a largely self-serving organization to begin with.  Most USGA'ers would not know true architecture from a mule turd and would'nt have a clue of how to become involved in the proper way (unless they contacted Rees).  

Lets let them stick to trying to regulate equipment and administer rules, when they get that right, maybe we'll talk.  

[Ed_Baker]

Other than stating emphatically "don't try this at your home course kids" I agree with golfarc, the USGA should stay away from architecture.

The USGA would have to universally endorse every type and style of course and architecture regardless of its purpose(design intent,target market, ect,ect) or they would create havoc in the business and we know they are not in to controversy or even serious discussion, they can't be really.
Rules are their gig and they should stick to it.

[BCrosby]

golfarc -

There are two myths that the USGA likes to propogate.  

The first is that we have no need for a competition ball because we all play "one game."

The second myth is that they are not involved in golf course architecture. The truth is that the USGA is up to its neck in golf course architecture.  

No one has a clearer set of design principles. (We could all come up with the list, so I'll spare you.)  

Their favored architects implement these principles rigorously.

Their courses are venues to major championships that have enormous influence on popular perceptions about good design. Because of these venues, the USGA may have more influence on architectural issues than any professional architect, living or dead.

The USGA needs to acknowledge this involvement and change the way they deal with architectural issues.  Their lack of acknowledgement is, I believe, doing real harm to the game.

Bob

[Jeff_Brauer]

Again, the USGA and its national championship it less than 1% of the game, and most people should know it.  I doubt the Open influences the average club through difficulty (hey, we know we don't want to play it that tough) less than one half of what Augusta influences things through its maintenance.  Both do feature lightning quick greens, though.

The USGA also influences architecture and maintenance meld more through its turf advisory service, which causes some friction with golf architects from time to time who feel 'Who is USGA to tell anyone how to design their course?"  However, from time to time, the USGA turf guys, who may be advising on how to cut costs or improve maintenance (a la Tillie for the PGA in the 30's) may suggest certain architectural changes to acheive that end.  So, the fields do overlap somewhat.

The USGA has also been the biggest proponent of "First Tee" funding courses to introduce the game to inner city youth, which is a good thing.

[Dave_Miller]

The USGA operates 13 National Championships.  The home course of Ed Baker and I, Charles River,  is hosting the USGA Men's State Team Championship in 2003.  This is a relatively new tournament run every other year.  2001 was at Hazeltine.
As Tournament Chairman I have worked very closely with the USGA in setting up this tournament.  They have not asked for a single architectural change and are setting up the course to challenge but not be impossible.  
I think they truly try to pick courses that accomodate the specific Tournament.  The River will challenge the participants but the USGA is not trying to change the architecture or make the course impossible. The Black Course was being done to challenge the best in the world and some architecture changes were needed.  In the long run when the rough is cut and the everyday tees are played those who play the Black day in and day out will benefit.
Cheers,
Dave

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

If the ball and equipment had been standardized or controlled,
we wouldn't be having this discussion today.

Sadly, I think the high tech genie is out of the bottle.

Hey, remember when ball used to curve in flight, radically  ?

In 1957, sixty year old guys weren't handling 7,200 yard golf courses.

Your dad was a great player, how far did he hit his drives in his prime ?  Let's say on a day with conditions like yesterday at Bethpage, how far did he CARRY his driver ? 210, 220, 230 ?

Is classic architecture the Maginot line ?
Totally outflanked by high tech ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Shivas,

If equipment and the ball been remained static in 1982 classic golf courses wouldn't be outmoded.

If the pace of retrogression remained as constant as the pace of progression from 1982, I'd be happy to make the change, making the leap from 2002 to 1982 in one shot is a difficult pill for most to swallow, but for the good of the game, I'd adopt and adapt.

[Dave_Miller]

Shivas and Patrick;

I can probably find some in my basement.  Unfortunately I would doubt the compression would exceed 20 or 30.

Fairways and Greens,
Dave

[George Pazin]

Thanks for the positive mention - half a dozen out of 300 ain't too shabby...

For the most part I'll second Bob Crosby again. Anyone who thinks the USGA isn't already influencing architecture is kidding themselves. Sometimes it's overt, sometimes it's simply in its approach to the game.

Responsibility is a tough word to use & define in this context.

Does everyone have a responsibility to contribute positively to everyday life? I don't know, I believe in personal liberty & if anyone wants to sit around & do nothing, that's his or her choice - just don't ask me to pick up the bill.

Similarly, the USGA can test golfers anyway they see fit, and golf manufacturers can even do anything legal they desire in their pursuit of profits - just don't be surprised if their actions are often misinterpreted by ignorant (knowledge-wise, not etiquette-wise) observers, whether it's the media, your local greens committee or Joe Six-Pack Golfer.

A simple word or two that gets reinforced periodically would go a long way toward helping things out, IMHO.


[Whoops, only 243 posts - they must have deleted one of the political threads:)]

[A_Clay_Man]

If the ball and equipment had been standardized or controlled,
we wouldn't be having this discussion today.

Pat, Is this what you meant to say?

I am under the impression that there are standards.

Do you mean stricter standards?

Should we bring back the guttie? and the Stymie?

[Brad Klein]

Interestingly, the USGA is careful to avoid being too cozy with any one manufacturer, for justified concern that it not appear to favor one competitor over another. I wonder whether this same attitude can be claimed in terms of its relatonships on the architecture side.

Technically, the USGA does not make course changes or hire the architect - witness Southern Hills choosing Keith Foster for the 2001 US Open, and Olympia Fields picking Mark Mungeam for 2003. But Rees Jones was hand-picked for 2002, and when David Fay openly refers to Rees Jones as the Open Doctor, then the balance has shifted. I'm not suggesting here that Rees' work (or anyone else's) is bad or should be avoided. On the contrary, in each of the above cases, the work was exemplary. I'm simply pointing out that there is a closer relationship between the USGA and one architect than between the USGA and any one equipment manufacturer.

[TEPaul]

There's some mention of balls and impliments on this thread in the name of the preservation of the function and effectiveness of architecture.

Is it feasible or possible for the USGA to combine and collaborate with the manufacturers for a central testing facility, agreed upon tests and protocols to be used by all centrally? That way there would be less "My test shows this and my test shows that" and balls and impliments may come into production more in line with the letter and spirit of the B&I rules and regulations. This would seem to make for a less standoffish, less aggressive and more collaborative process between the USGA and the manufacturers and a smoother way of developing and producing equipment that conforms.