[Ronald Montesano]

Debate the architectural repercussions of the letter found at the end of this article. Is the USGA so powerful that it influences course setups by individual courses? Is the PGA Tour so influential?

http://golfweek.com/news/2013/jun/20/course-operator-usga-its-about-time/

[Mac Plumart]

Truly a great article.  The areas of the game discussed and the governing bodies view versus 'real-world' views is right at the heart of golf's most pressing issues.  And I'll add further comment that these difference of opinion impact architecture and maintenance, which is the focus of this site.

[Carl Johnson]

Very nice article.  Of course the USGA is clueless; we all know that.  However, I like the idea that there be one governing body for golf, and one set of rules.  I think that is possible, and I would like to think the USGA could work on that and make it happen - popular golf for the recreational player (without which there would be no golf at all) and entertainment golf (that is, the pro game that the rest of us pay, directly or indirectly, to watch).  The fact that we all play the same game (rules and equipment wise, more or less) is what makes it fun.

[Mike_Young]

He wrote a very good letter.
The USGA did not accept clubs other than private for a long time.  How many executive board members have been affiliated with a public ( privately owned) golf club?  They just don't understand or really want the public and they can't decide if their customer is the club or the golfer.   I don't have a problem with the USGA having their own rules.  I think they can have their rules and if one wishes to participate then they abide by their rules.  The problem is they should not get in the way of people filling tee sheets with the guys that don't play by their rules.
I think the other thing is that they may be the only amateur body that makes rules for a professional organization.

[Tom_Doak]

I was not so impressed with the letter.  I understand that it's a tough time to be in the golf business, but the USGA is hardly to blame for all of that.

I'm not sure there are any "architectural repercussions" in this.  For many years, the USGA's management of the U.S. Open has been a poor example of many of their other initiatives, whether it has to do with slow play or sustainability or maintenance practices ... an annual "do as I say, not as I do" convention.  But, they don't tout it as an example for others, and they don't encourage owners to set up their courses that way.

The letter suggests there is no clamor from the public for that sort of set-up, but unfortunately, I'm not sure that's true.  It may be true of the mom-and-pop courses Mike champions, but there are also thousands of private clubs around the U.S. that maintain their fairways too narrow and their roughs too thick and their greens too fast, partly because of the economics but partly because club members think that's what the standard is.  And they believe that based on what they see on TV, but also because the professionals in care of their course push it on them.

 

[Mike_Young]

TD,
Agree that you are probably correct concerning the private clubs in the US and how they arrive at many of their conditions.  And IMHO it si mainly because the one's in charge push it.
I think the letter was mainly to address the specific comments of Nagy and Nagy probably wishes he had worded the speech differently.
But in the end there is a huge difference between private golf and public(privately owned) golf and I don't see proportionate representation with the USGA. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Weekly PGA Tour telecasts have far more influence over the "golf" world than the US Open.

As to those criticizing the USGA, how many of you have written to them expressing your thoughts ?

[Carl Johnson]

Weekly PGA Tour telecasts have far more influence over the "golf" world than the US Open.

As to those criticizing the USGA, how many of you have written to them expressing your thoughts ?

Good point.  I've been a card carrying member for years.  I will write today and mail tomorrow.

[Terry Lavin]

The USGA is glacially slow and largely tone deaf, but this guy is a whiner. Fix your own problem before you point the finger elsewhere.

[Mike_Young]

Weekly PGA Tour telecasts have far more influence over the "golf" world than the US Open.

As to those criticizing the USGA, how many of you have written to them expressing your thoughts ?

If you consider my statements as complaining to the USGA, then yes, I have written.  I support the USGA.  But if they went away tomorrow it would not affect play at most public courses...

[Carl Rogers]

.....
I'm not sure there are any "architectural repercussions" in this.  For many years, the USGA's management of the U.S. Open has been a poor example of many of their other initiatives, whether it has to do with slow play or sustainability or maintenance practices ... an annual "do as I say, not as I do" convention.  But, they don't tout it as an example for others, and they don't encourage owners to set up their courses that way.  .....

One of the reasons why next years US Open at Pinehurst will make a policy statement ....
The set-up question I see is asking this question:  "Does the winning score matter?"

[Bill Brightly]

I think the letter misrepresented Nager's position.

I wonder how many of you saw the interview with Glen Nager? I thought he was excellent in that interview, and made it pretty clear that the set up for a US Open is just about the opposite of what he would recommend for golf courses across the country.  Nager is obviously in a tough spot: whether we like it or not, the USGA is following a tradition of making the US Open the most grueling possible test for the world's best players. Like most people, I happen to enjoy watching it, even though I hate what has to be done to prepare most of the sites.

As long as the USGA keeps stressing that this is a "one week per year deal" and these conditions, including 13+ on the stimp are NOT something that should be replicated, I'll give Mr. Nager some slack. Slow play needs to be addressed, and they are trying. The USGA did put a number of groups on the clock, maybe one of these years they'll actually hit someone with a penalty...

[Brad Isaacs]

In general, not specific, the more high profile a course is the faster the green speed is and the more intimidating the rough is. The green speeds tend to increase and rough gets higher the closer you get to New Jersey and New York. This anecdotal evidence leads me to confirm and agree with Tom Doaks letter above.

[Jim_Kennedy]

You can't have it both ways - every time there's a 'slow play' thread on this site we usually hear how it's a management issue at the club level, i.e, they load the tee sheet at 6 or 8 minute intervals, Rangers Rick are sitting on their thumbs, etc., etc..

Now, when the USGA gets proactive, some of us are ready to criticize their efforts.  

The USGA, along with the PGA/PGATour, are the most well known and visible entities in the world of golf. They are also in the best position to publicize, and thereby educate the golfing population about the issue. Owners, operators, superintendents, etc., should be getting on board.
 
So, if you're operating your course properly you aren't part of the problem and you don't need to feel like a victim.

[Ben Sims]

I don't know which makes me gag more in this instance, the humbly indignant course owner or the self-righteous USGA.  For one to load their problems solely onto another is a mirror image of our completely worthless and inept legislative branch.  Everybody's a victim, no one's part of the solution.  

Here's a thought.  How about the USGA walks the walk when it comes to slow play.  How about the US Open, US Women's Open, the US Senior Open, and all the major US amateur tourney's have an aggressive pace of play standard.  And actually ENFORCE the standard.  It would do much more good to see 4-4.5 hour rounds on TV than Annika doing the absolute worst impression of Rodney ever devised.

Here's another thought.  How about course owners stop kowtowing to flippant maintenance demands by customers.  Widen your fairways, cut down your rough, water less.  For God's sake slow down your greens.  And back off on the tee sheet.  How about 10 minute gaps?  How about less time worrying about how often your drink cart makes it around every hour and more time spent on engendering efficient operations?  

This is not a single sided coin.  But as with most things, it's easy to blame someone for your problems rather than fix them.

[Aaron McMaster]

I was not so impressed with the letter.  I understand that it's a tough time to be in the golf business, but the USGA is hardly to blame for all of that.

I'm not sure there are any "architectural repercussions" in this.  For many years, the USGA's management of the U.S. Open has been a poor example of many of their other initiatives, whether it has to do with slow play or sustainability or maintenance practices ... an annual "do as I say, not as I do" convention.  But, they don't tout it as an example for others, and they don't encourage owners to set up their courses that way.

The letter suggests there is no clamor from the public for that sort of set-up, but unfortunately, I'm not sure that's true.  It may be true of the mom-and-pop courses Mike champions, but there are also thousands of private clubs around the U.S. that maintain their fairways too narrow and their roughs too thick and their greens too fast, partly because of the economics but partly because club members think that's what the standard is.  And they believe that based on what they see on TV, but also because the professionals in care of their course push it on them.

Tom,

As a super I can't disagree with the last sentence of your statement more.  This might have been the case thirty years ago that supers pushed their members to spend more resources to create the Augusta syndrome and outdo the guy down the street but I can assure you it's not happening now.  We all sit around now and ask where does it all end, how far can these people go with expectations.  My members drive the bus and just like any other business you need to satisfy them.  If I could leave greens speeds at 10.5 every day I would and I'd have zero stress in my job to do so. 

We recently renovated our course and put a new bent on the greens that others have stopped into look at.  I gave a tour to a member who's a member from another local club and his second club in AZ is currently rebuilding greens.  I had mentioned that I had spoke to their GC and he said they wanted speeds around 10.5 every day and this member looked at me and I quote "he doesn't know what he's talking about we want 12-15".  These are the idiots that "push this" and they really don't know what they're talking about.

Now as far as the usga, just get with the program and make a tour standard.  Give them tour spec balls, clubs, green speeds etc then let everyone else enjoy the game with balls that go as far as possible, clubs that are easier to hit, belly putters and make the courses playable in 3-3.5 hrs.  Shoot, we need to look at 12 hole courses as well!!

 

[Mike_Young]

I don't know which makes me gag more in this instance, the humbly indignant course owner or the self-righteous USGA.  

Ben,
One question. 
Which is the parasite?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Anyone who knows Joe and Eagle Golf knows he practices what he preached in that letter.  They do all they can to speed play, make courses play easier, etc.  Last year at a golf conference, we conversed and he told me that he has never had a single complaint from customers when he made his courses easier via set up, bunker removal, etc.

I have removed bunkers on three of my own designs managed/owned by Eagle.  I have played those courses, and all divots are near the fronts of the tees.  Back tees are merely a rumor.  Roughs low, fw moderate (too expensive to mow 50 yards wide of fw)  They do all they can to ease the challenge, speed play, etc.

I agree with him that his company truly caters to the real  "Golf in America".  Public players struggling just to get the ball airborne and/or straight certainly don't need difficult golf courses, speedy greens, etc.

[Jim_Kennedy]

I don't know which makes me gag more in this instance, the humbly indignant course owner or the self-righteous USGA.  

Ben,
One question.  
Which is the parasite?

The USGA was formed in 1894, I don't think there were any for-profit, daily fee courses back then.  

Today: "USGA member club representatives control or own 10,600 golf courses with 171,000 holes" and 64% of them are publics.

[Mike_Young]

I don't know which makes me gag more in this instance, the humbly indignant course owner or the self-righteous USGA.  

Ben,
One question.  
Which is the parasite?

The USGA was formed in 1894, I don't think there were any for-profit, daily fee courses back then.  

Today: "USGA member club representatives control or own 10,600 golf courses with 171,000 holes" and 64% of them are publics.

Jim,
You are correct.  And i dont think they had any public courses for members until the mid seventies...not sure but I think it was around then.  Now I support the USGA having its rules and etc BUT  why did they ever let the public courses in?  Simple  $$$$$...
So we have one guy who is a volunteer and one guy who is an owner and can lose his business if he make a wrong decision.  When I mention parasite I am saying only one of those needs the other to survive.  Sorry if that sounds anti-USGA.  I'm not.  They just should not be discussing for profit golf when they really know nothing about it.IMHO.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but using your recollection of 1975 as the date that the USGA started to bring in publics as members would seem to suggest that they weren't 'parasites' from 1894 until 1974.       I think the word parasite, and its meaning, are somewhat overblown in this instance and I think Mr.Joseph R. Munsch is making a bit too much out of a molehill.

And when I hear someone in the business of running golf courses say:  "But we have to have a fun aspect to this game. It's hard to learn and hard to have fun if you're not playing well. We could have different equipment for beginning golfers" ,or:  "Those thoughts are surprising coming from an organization that recently ruled to ban the anchored putter, created unnecessary controversy when Callaway introduced the “non-conforming driver” and often frowns on the improved travel distances of today’s golf balls", I have to ask myself the question:  Whose interests is this fellow looking out for, the games? the players, or simply his own?

I applaud him for his success and I admire him for "getting it", but I don't think he's in any position to see himself as a victim in all this. After all, if he presents fun, not-too-overly demanding courses that are well supported than what's he got to complain about?

[Mike_Young]

Mike,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but using your recollection of 1975 as the date that the USGA started to bring in publics as members would seem to suggest that they weren't 'parasites' from 1894 until 1974.       I think the word parasite, and its meaning, are somewhat overblown in this instance and I think Mr.Joseph R. Munsch is making a bit too much out of a molehill.

And when I hear someone in the business of running golf courses say:  "But we have to have a fun aspect to this game. It's hard to learn and hard to have fun if you're not playing well. We could have different equipment for beginning golfers" ,or:  "Those thoughts are surprising coming from an organization that recently ruled to ban the anchored putter, created unnecessary controversy when Callaway introduced the “non-conforming driver” and often frowns on the improved travel distances of today’s golf balls", I have to ask myself the question:  Whose interests is this fellow looking out for, the games? the players, or simply his own?

I applaud him for his success and I admire him for "getting it", but I don't think he's in any position to see himself as a victim in all this. After all, if he presents fun, not-too-overly demanding courses that are well supported than what's he got to complain about?

Jim,
I could be that "parasite" could be the wrong word.  I was using it mainly because part of the definition is that a parasite requires a host.  Public golf may not have been a "host" prior to 1975 but private clubs were.  The USGA now has all of these as members and needs their support in order to " live at the standard to which they have become accustomed" .   It's sort of like I say about many clubs when a GM says that dining is what it's all about and dining makes all the money and golf loses money at a club.  I say fine....close dining for a month and see how the golf operation fares.  Then close golf for a month and see how dining fares...  Same goes for the USGA. 
But let me try to be clear on my position here.  I have ZERO problem with the USGA making their rules and requiring people to play by their rules in their tournaments.  I'm not against any of that and I'm not even against them setting up the US Open like they do.  I just don't think they care about "for profit" golf.  And that's fine also.  BUT don't ACTIVELY try to stop the "for profit" model from filling tee times which is what happens when you try to stop the long putter etc.   When you ask:  Whose interests is this fellow looking out for, the games? the players, or simply his own?  Of course he is looking out for himself.  It's his business.  And that's where it differs.  The guys making the rules are volunteers and would probably handle their companies business in the same manner.  I have not seen anyone in this discussion say we should not look after the game or the rules.  I think we should and I think the USGA should be the one to do that for the amateur side of the sport.  I'm not sure they should do such for the professional at this time.  But most players I know never play without breaking a rule somewhere in 18 holes.  They would tell you they don't but they do whether it be 15 clubs, mismarking a ball by an inch, and many other small instances. 
The USGA can make the rule but then be quiet and let the equipment people do as they wish.  They will do more for bringing people to the gme and keeping people in the game than the USGA .  IMHO...and that's not to berate the USGA...I just don't think growth and filling tee sheets should be their concern.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike, 
 I just don't see it the same way. For example, the USGA has always allowed equipment companies to do as they wish, they did not stop Callaway from making the ERC11, all they did was deem it non-conforming. I don't know anyone who sold the club, and there was no hue and cry from golfers to have it.
  The USGA said that anchoring breaks a rule, but they do not stop anyone from employing the technique. There aren't any USGA police coming after you if you decide to continue anchoring, but your playing partners or a rules official might take you to task for it.   
  There will not be a USGA copper chasing you down if you carry 15 clubs or incorrectly mark the position of your ball, but once again, other players and rules folks will.
   Equipment companies = $400.00 drivers, $275.00 fwy. wood, $240.00 hybrids, $750 irons, $125.00 wedges, and $150.00 putters.
This may surprise you, but I don't see how that equates with "bringing (more) people to the game". 
   


   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()