[Scott Seward]

After reading Geoff Shakelford's latest diatribe, I am left wondering - is there anything that he likes about the game right now? To summarize his points (many of which are strongly defended and well thought-out):

- The USGA has created a course set-up template that robs many masterpieces of their integrity. The USGA has its head in the sand about technology, the USGA....Oh well, lets blame the USGA for everything.

Being very pro USGA, I find it difficult to read this endless litany, though I think again that Geoff is right about many things. I do know that when you are the governing body, people will take shots at you, right or wrong. It would be interesting to get Geoff in a presidential style debate with either David Fay or MArty Parkes, both very good communicators.

Two thoughts from my perspective:

- The Russian Tea Room was a mistake, but the USGA knew going in that this was a possibility. The association will makea profit on its sale - this was studied before the initial purchase - so why is this being picked on as evidence of mismanagement?

- The USGA moves carefully with regards to technology because not to do so invites litigation. Yes the coffers are full right now, but I wiuld rather see this money spent through its foundation or other projects than being tied up in litigation.

 

[George Pazin]

This is a tough topic, to me at least.

Not knowing Geoff personally (yet - I'll get out there someday & buy him a beer or three) & judging from his columns, posts on here & fantastic written work, I'd hypothesize that Geoff in fact LOVES much about golf & even a lot about the game as it stands now.

Having met a handful of individuals who work at or with the USGA in either a paid or volunteer position, I'd say they LOVE the game just as much.

Anytime you have individuals with deep seated passions and beliefs, they are bound to conflict in some way. Sometimes people who are great guys are so passionate about things that they have a hard time showing the restraint that would probably serve them better. This site illustrates this better than just about anything else.

I often wonder if the state of the game (& in many ways, the state of life) is best served by having deeply passionate people on both sides of the aisle & maintaining things through frequent butting of heads. Speaking as someone who in his personal life is almost 100% non-confrontational (try not to fall over laughing if you're bored at my tussles with Patrick), my experience is that the calm reasoned approach doesn't as well as one would hope.

Lastly, reading someone's written words on the net can never replace seeing & listening to them in person. Sometimes positions come across as much angrier and much more intransigent online than they really are.

The one thing that I think would lessen concerns quite a bit, however, would be if the USGA were a little more open with their thinking. I know this is asking a lot, but it is really difficult for even me, a golfer who plays primarily at munis & cheap public courses, to sit back & see what is being done to many old private classic courses and not question what is being done, as well as not liking the examples set each year at the US Open. I can only imagine what it must be like for Geoff, who has devoted years of his life to studying architecture, written several incredible books about the subject & written an in depth biography on George Thomas & his golf courses (one of my all time favorite golf books, BTW) to have to sit ringside & watch what's being done at Riviera. Scream bias all you want, I have yet to hear anyone outside of the principals involved say anything good about the recent work done. When announcers on TV tapdance around when commenting on the course, you get a feeling things aren't too good.

-----
On a separate note, the skeptic in me says I'll believe they'll profit from the sale of the Russian Tea Room when I see it. But that just the skeptical former financial geek in me speaking.

[Scott Seward]

I agree with you totally. I don't mean any of this personally, (and keeping in mind that yes, what is written on a forum can come out entirely different than hearing the person speak), I think his latest writings struck me as gratuitously harsh. I too would like to see the USGA come out swinging more, but they can't afford to. They sometimes seem like a gentle giant, endlessly provoked but never a reaction.

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Scott,
You are right, I don't like much about the state of certain aspects of the game and certainly the R&A deserves as much criticism. I'm not sure which "diatribe" you are referring to, but I don't think I'm going out on a limb saying that the sport is headed in an unhealthy direction, nor am I alone in expressing concern for classic golf courses (I just write about it because no one else is). I've been reading too much Max Behr lately, but when you read his stuff and know what was being warned about 75 years ago, you realize how far golf has drifted from the principles that jumpstarted the sport a long time ago.

The criticism directed at the USGA is out of respect for what the USGA once was and can be under leadership that values tradition and architecture. I want to see a healthy, strong, USGA for the good of the game, and respect what its founders believed in and in the traditions that many of them fought for over the years. But I have concern for some in the current regime's willingness to accept compromising golf courses and common sense values, as opposed to taking a stand against manufacturers who would like golf to be a consumer pursuit, not an adventurous recreational one.

I am not alone in this feeling. I've talked and received very nice emails from several in the organization who are frustrated with what has happened, so I'd like to think that some of my writing on this issue is, if nothing else, defending those who have devoted their life to golf, the rules, tradition, etc... and who are concerned as well (whether they agree with all of my points or not) but are unable to voice their opinions.

Naturally, I'd love the opportunity to have a "presidential style" forum discussing the role of architecture, technology, Golf Journal, the Tea Room, social engineering, amateur status and ball testing with Mr. Fay. For instance, I know from my brief communications with him that we have very different views about the role of architecture and technology, and he has shared his views about forums such as this (he's not a big fan of discussion and GCA, though he claims to have never logged on to GCA...).

At times Mr. Fay believes courses should bend and change to accomodate technology, other times he's voiced similar concerns that mirror those I've expressed, so it would be interesting to get some clarification.  I'm finishing up a book laying out a case for the future of golf that covers these issues and various other uh, diatribes that hopefully present a constructive argument against letting the manufacturers run golf into the ground. So I'm sorry to report, but the "endless litany" won't be wrapping up just yet.
Geoff

PS - I'm not alone in criticizing the USGA, and certainly people who are much wiser, older and accomplished than myself have said worse things about the USGA than I have:

I can tell you right now this ball thing is coming to an end. Otherwise it'll be the demise of golf courses…I guarantee as sure as I'm sitting here, the USGA has not had the leadership to do it, and I'm an admirer of the USGA. Something's going to be done in the future, but by whom, I'm not sure.
-Gary Player, 2003

The people we looked to in order to maintain the integrity of the game failed us. They didn't have enough foresight or courage. I lay total blame at the foot of the USGA.
-Deane Beman, former commissioner of the PGA Tour

I'm sorry, they didn't get a grip on the manufacturers. And now they are trying to make it up by changing the greatest pieces of art work that we have in the world. I think that they went about this all wrong. Meaning the USGA should have stopped this before it has ever gotten to this point instead of changing great golf courses."
-Hal Sutton

The USGA have been timorous, despite investments valued at $150 million. A rollback is anathema, and they fear that core constituents, American amateur golfers, would revolt because they believe that springy clubs and new balls matter. Thus, no action is taken because of an illusion.
-Frank Hannigan, former USGA Executive Director

[Scott Seward]

First of all, Geoff, I have the upmost respect for your writings. I have all of your books and agree with most everything you say - especially when it comes to classic architecture.

And I know you are not alone with regards to the USGA. Perhaps my feelings come from a sense that they alone are bearing the brunt of criticism for what is wrong with the game right now, and I don't think this is right. I think the organization still stands for what is right but if anything, is guilty of being both too careful and maybe a little naive.

[TEPaul]

"Perhaps my feelings come from a sense that they alone are bearing the brunt of criticism for what is wrong with the game right now, and I don't think this is right. I think the organization still stands for what is right but if anything, is guilty of being both too careful and maybe a little naive."

Scott:

I agree with you that the USGA does still stand for what is right in many ways. However, as far as bearing the brunt of criticism for what is wrong with the game right now, I don't think that's right either that the USGA solely bear the brunt for the reasons why. The manufacturers definitely bear the brunt for the reasons why that problem came to be to a large degree but that's not really their responisibility to ponder and police the limits of balls and impliments--that's the responsibility of our national golf governing organization that at the present does have the sole responsibility in the USA for monitoring Balls and Impliments and their effects on the game and the game's architecture now and in the future.

It's clearly not a simple issue or a simple one to enforce but if they either won't or can't do it than who will? That seems to be what Geoff Shackelford is trying to point out. Geoff Shackelford is not exactly revealing some secret here--just defining the problem more clearly and comprhensively than most anyone has. The USGA really shouldn't continue on to act as if nothing is in the wind here--they more than most know there is. Geoff's primary point is they just have to act sooner rather than later and most defintely not consider not acting at all!

[Tim_Weiman]

Scott Seward:

I'm not sure what you mean by referring to Geoff's writings as a "diatribe". Can you tell us what Geoff has written that you don't agree with?

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Scott,
I do very much appreciate what you are saying because at times I wonder myself if this subject is really worth pursuing or if I'm too hard on the USGA or if it's reached the broken record/diatribe point. Understand my criticism of the organization comes from a tough love perspective. I had hoped that they could maintain a position of authority and respect in the sport because there are no alternatives that would be a positive force running the sport (The Tour? Too consumed with money; The R&A? Obviously clueless and a hindrance to the USGA's efforts; The PGA of America? They won't even fight for their own members, must less the game).

The USGA's recent mistakes and compromises have had the opposite effect of strengthening their cause. Mix in some incredible arrogance at times, and their relevance is basically similar to that of the USTA: tournament organizer and little else.

So is the issue of the ball/distance important? Personally, I think it's the most important in the history of the USGA and the sport (it has been for 75 years when you see what Darwin, MacKenzie, Jones and Behr all wrote). And sadly, I sense the USGA leadership doesn't see how vital it is because they're acting on everything but the fundamental issue before them. More disturbing than that is ignorance of the traditions that are the foundation of golf. It's pretty sad when many of the same folks who tell you what traditionalists and stewards they are, back up their views by bastardizing various traditions. Some do it knowingly hoping to save face, most just don't seem to have given it much thought.

My goal in writing on this subject (at least with "The Future of Golf") is to put together the pieces of the architecture-distance-fun-cost puzzle to make a case for the long term health of the sport, because it's a complicated mix but one that just has to be discussed sooner rather than later.
Regards,
Geoff

[JohnV]

Geoff, While I agree with much of what you write about the problems with the game, the thing that bothers me is that you NEVER seem to pass up the opportunity to get in the gratuitous shot at David Fay or the USGA.  Take your comments on the Judy Rankin article on higher par numbers for women for example,

Oh, and she reports that the USGA's David Fay likes her idea...he also liked the idea of buying the Russian Tea Room for $16 million and turning it into a museum.

You can't just say that David Fay liked the idea, you have to hit him over the head for the Russian Tea Room in talking about an article that had nothing to do with it.  Since I wasn't in the room when the decision to buy the RTM was made, I don't know if David Fay pushed it or had it foisted on him by the Executive Committee.  Do you?

[David Kelly]

I see Geoff as someone who (to paraphrase a hero of mine) is standing athwart history yelling "Stop!" The problem to me is that there are not enough Geoff Shackelfords out there.  

It is easy to sometimes think of Geoff as being constantly negative but he is writing and saying things that many others should be writing and saying and are not.  And by that I mean most of the mainstream golf and sports media.

Witness the recent Golf Digest "Power" issue.  What a great time to really examine the whole ball/equipment issue in a serious manner. Of course they didn't do it. Instead we got the usual instruction nonsense with hardly any mention of the equipment controversy with the exception of one little half joking column by David Owen that questioned the point of the quest for distance.

We need many more people out there questioning where the game is headed and holding the governing bodies accountable for their actions or non-actions.

[Scott Seward]

Tim - Its more a general tone of the writing that I take issue with (John V's post highlighted this).

I think Geoff's responses are well taken. I am personally so conflicted on the ball issue, I find it difficult to form a solid opinion. Unquestionalbly something must be done and no one has written more about this than Geoff, but I also trust Dick Rugge - I think he is one of the smartest, well-spoken administrators at the USGA.

[MargaretC]

I haven't read all of Geoff's books, but it appears to me in reading the other posts that, if there is any disagreement, at most, it may be a disagreement of Geoff's style rather than content or issues.

With all due respect, Scott, if the USGA is bearing the brunt of the criticism, it is because they are the governing body for amateur golf in the US.  Your post says as much.  That's all part of the "...buck stops here...can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen..." and other "trite" expressions applied to individuals and/or groups in leadership positions.  That's just the way it is.

I sure have no idea what lead to the RTR; however, I'd feel worse if I discovered it were true that the USGA recognized up front that the potential for a museum was a stretch.  That, in my opinion, would be very poor management.

The USGA and the Exec Board are supposed to be responsible stewards of the organization's funds.  That stewardship does not include knee-jerking the purchase of a multi-million building in Manhattan -- it's called due dilligence.  Hopefully, they will be able to sell the RTR for a profit, but when it comes to real estate, no one can ever make that guarantee.  Even if they payed cash for the building, there are on-going expenses with all property, so to even break even, the building has to be sold for more than obviously, what they payed for it PLUS the ongoing support costs, the cost associated with the closing on the initial purchase, any costs associated with the sale that aren't covered by closing costs received and further, the "profit or loss" of the whole RTR venture has to be compared with the investment income lost from the monies used to purchase RTR.

Every organization needs to be prudent in actions which may "invite litigation;" however, in virtually every situation, there is also a point in time wherein too much caution results in opportunity lost forever -- especially, when it comes to potential litigation.

Most litigators will say that the best defense against a law suit of this variety is to have a clear mission, or guidelines, etc.,  On this score, I think that the USGA has failed miserably.  I don't remember the details; however, I read recently that the USGA has revised one or several testing procedures.  Either the standards or testing procedures used by the USGA prior to this recent change were SO OLD, and I mean REALLY old that I remember being absolutely stunned.  Scott, to me, that is not caution.  That's just plain dumb.

I'm sure that someone on this board will remember the article to which I refer.

I don't know anyone is the USGA.  I'm familiar with names, but that's it; however, I have long felt that the organization, for whatever reason, were dragging their feet in addressing issues concerning equipment.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Scott,
Quite obviously I'm going to be sticking up for Geoff, because I do think he a quite sane voice of reason for the Game right now, and yes, Geoff is a friend, so I do have something to stake into it, just like John V. and Tom Paul who are equally just as close and personal friends who volunteer their  services to the USGA.

That is the point I wish to address the most here in regards to the critical comment. It is the 5th amendment right as Americans that's at its best working here, voicing our opinions on the State of the Game, and quite frankly, judging by the equipment, the amount of courses being funded to get built, as well as the wrong dceisions that are being made on a daily basis on how to handle technology without destorying the Game as we know it--The USGA has bascially adopted the same foothold as the Jimmy Carter Adminstration with the hostages in Iran--That they are taking a firm stance! And yet still, nothing has happened.

We can open up any issue of Golfweek and know exactly what is happening at Callaway, or how Spaulding, a maker of Golf Equipment since the beginning of time, is no more. We take it as WORD, yet when we want to address the issues of the governing body, the very questionable practices or bad choices that have taken affect in regards to your $15.00 + annual contribution; As well as fully support the rehiring of the chairman of the membership committee Arnold Palmer, who says it is O.K. to cheat because it makes the Game more fun, then we have posts such.

I for one support anyone that volunteers their time and energy to help make the organization better, even if this means that some of them are maybe blowing the whistle on something bad that is happening without the people who support the USGA, knowing of.

Geoff's efforts are full of the passion and intellect that is needed to protect the Game from it's most dangerous enemy--who, I can assure you it isn't Geoff, who not only writes the most intellectual commentary on the Game today as we know it because he isn't the one showing a multi-million dollar profit from the last quarter, as well as promoting his latest book as being the longest and farthest.

(If I'm wrong, then he is buying dinner the next time out!)

So to Answer what does Geoff like?--Geoff likes the game of Golf, and is willing to go to the matresses to prove it. Even so much as willing to put his reputation behind it.

And since you mention to have so much knowledge of the intellect of Dick Rugge, May I ask you of your association with him and the USGA?

[Tim_Weiman]

Scott Seward:

So you agree with the arguments Geoff has put forth, but disagree with the "general tone of his writing". Is that right?

If so, I'm curious what difference Geoff's "general tone" makes. Are you saying that if Geoff would just learn to write with a more pleasant tone, the USGA would finally act to put a stop to the golf technology arms race?

Isn't is possible that the USGA really is the problem rather than a few writers that occasionally speak out?

[Scott Seward]

Tommy - I work for a regional association (NorCal)

We all can agree with Geoff's passion (I know he likes golf!). We all can agree with his knowledge. What I am responding to is the many criticisms - some justified, of an organization that I know bends over backwards to serve the game's best interest. It is easy to sit back from a far and take shots - some justified - at this organization, much like Rush Limbaugh, Al Franken and the rest take shots at our government. All of this is healthy to a certain degree, and necessary.

Because of my work, some of the criticism I take more to heart. The member of this board are knowlegable, passionate golfers. If they are not at least some what behind the USGA, then obviously there is a problem. So I defend them because I know the people, and I know their intent is pure.

[Mike_Sweeney]

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=5207;start=msg100414#msg100414

Here is an old thread on the USGA.

Geoff,

I think The Masters could start the ball by creating a Tournament Ball.

[TEPaul]

GeoffShac's message is a good one--a very good one--a pure one--and ultimately a very necessary one, in my opinion. Geoff's tone towards the USGA I only look at as something that may not get the desired effect from them--the USGA (if they are in fact paying attention to his message) that a kinder, gentler more apparently supportive tone combined with the same message might get from them. That's always been my concern and Geoff and I have talked about that for years now.

Be that as it may, GeoffShac's feeling is that actions speak louder than words and how much time must go on before one stops talking (saying you'll do something but not really doing it) and starts acting very proactively on this distance issue and it's effects on architecture once and for all?

I'm sure Geoff is somewhere between wondering if he doesn't hit them hard enough they simply won't pay attention and if he does hit them hard he'll create adverserialness from them toward both him and his message.

In a more intelligent and effective world, all of us, including the USGA should just forget about his tone and concentrate on his message--but will this ever be a more intelligent and effective world when it comes to issues such as this? That's the question.

And futhermore even any joker knows the message is always more important than the tone--at least retrospect tells us that! But then again one wonders about even that because the message GeoffShac is sending the USGA is frighteningly similar to the message the likes of William Flynn and the remarkable golf and architecture thinker and philosopher Max Behr was sending the same organization on the distance issue over 75 years ago. All we're sure of now is they really didn't listen to that message then at least not closely enough!

[GeoffreyC]

I fully support Geoff's "diatribe" to try to get the USGA to move more quickly on some issues that are important for the future of the game.

I sort of make an analogy with my constant diatribe against Roger Rulewich and the work being done to the Yale golf course.  I take every opportunity to rip into him and the work being done in a very sharp and direct manner.  Its like being on the lunatic fringe zelot position but it evokes responses and it keeps the important questions and issues out front where people are talking about them and thinking about them. That's a GOOD thing. Would a "kind and gentile" article do the same thing?

Maybe/Probably in the end Geoff won't get ANY credit for getting a satisfactory resolution to the issues of the ball and equipment (not that he wants any credit) but every time his articles get us to think about it and to write the USGA ourselves moves the situation closer to resolution. If someone didn't dump tea into the harbor of Boston would be be here today with the democracy we all share?

Here's to (peacefull) zealots!

[George_Bahto]

Geoff has the guts accompanied by facts he’s dug up to take vigorous stands against what he feels could
be improved on or, in his view, is entirely wrong with our game and the grounds on which it is played.

Bravo Geoff - he’s shouting a lot of this out there to the masses - things a lot of us are thinking but are too
chicken-shit say.

He now has a platform - one he built piece by piece himself - from where he can state his views, often to
the chagrin to the powers to be.

Geoff, I’m proud of you and so are so very many of us.

Geoff’s stance is not that dissimilar to Tommy Doak’s stance on his, often blistery, attacks on golf course
architects and the some of what has been attempted to be passed off as good golf courses .......... the
you pat me on the back and I’ll do the same for you, routine.

We’ll piss-and-moan amongst ourselves - THEY DO IT PUBLICLY AT THE RISK OF DAMAGE TO THE
REPUTATIONS.

Keep up the good work guys and do not relent.

[Geoff_Shackelford]

JohnV,

David Fay is the man up front. The Executive Committee and other volunteers are just that, volunteers, and at the end of the day Fay's job is to lead them in a positive direction. He's paid well to be a guardian of the USGA, the Committee and the sport. I think he's doing a bad job compared to his predecessor.

He may have been against the Tea Room for all I know, as he was noticeably absent (except for one mention) in the lengthy New Yorker piece that reminded us what a friend to multiculturalism the USGA has been. (Come on!)  Mr. Fay's overall leadership style has led the organization to this bottom-line, "fudiciary responsibility," corporate spin mode that encourages people like Mr. Gleecher while discouraging substance.

Furthermore, as Scott has pointed out why he's not comfortable with my tone (and I fully understand where he's coming from), I just don't know how reasonable it is to question and criticize the ExCom when they are volunteers and when they seem to be learning on the job. They are not there to be public figures open to criticism for policies/disasters that were likely handed down to them. Several past presidents -- by the time they reached the big job anyway -- all have made very strong comments about the ball/technology situation as they were headed out the door. But it seems at the point one reaches the presidency, they have to devote their time to sort of a swan-song, celebration-of-their-service-parade instead of getting to accomplish something (Mr. Holland and Mr. Taylor stand out in this regard).

Mr. Fay seems to be passionate about anything that clears him of mismanagement, which is why he has surrounded himself with seven in-house lawyers (which appears to have made things a lot worse). You can say what you want about Frank Hannigan (and I don't agree with him quite often), but would the organization be in the bind it is in today under his leadership? I say no way. I find it hard to believe that he would stay on the job if they went ahead with the Russian Tea Room purchase nor do I believe he'd accept the complete elimination of Golf Journal nor shrug off compromises in amateur status issues. Not at least without a reasoned, passionate explanation to the ExCom who would like see a better way than the road Mr. Fay seems to lead them down (which could one of many roads, based on his public comments which are inconsistent).

Mike,
Hootie would be the ideal man on the ball thing, but as a wise soul recently pointed out to me, did you notice who the first people were to shake Mike Weir's hand when he won the Masters? A former USGA President, a future USGA President and an Executive Committee member. All in green coats!

Thanks for the nice comments all and Scott I do appreciate what you are saying. I do not want to sound like an Ann Coulter or Michael Moore where the message is clouded by histrionics and personal attacks. The point is to get everyone together to make this connection between architecture-technology-fun and cost and how the direction we're headed is just dreadful if we want to preserve the best traditions of golf. The point of the book I'm putting together is to fit those pieces together for those who are struggling to make the connection, and do it in an accessible way. Unfortunately, this requires building a case and presenting some anecdotes that do not reflect very well on the USGA.
Geoff

[Lou_Duran]

I have trouble visualizing a grown man who relishes making crank phone calls while walking a "Top Ten" course also being a zealot on a righteous crusade.

The original question is a good one.  Geoff holds and expresses some very strong opinions which are shared by a good many folks on this site.  Questions and warnings regarding balls and equipment have been around since the time of the featherie, and no doubt, Geoff, as a historian, has a superior long-term perspective than most.

In my opinion, the tone of his writing when reviewed comprehensively does betray a sense of despair or deep frustration.  It is my understanding that Geoff rarely plays anymore, which if true, it is a real pity.

Unfortunately, the USGA does represent a wide constituency which probably includes a large majority that believes that longer and straighter is much better than the alternative.  The current Titleist commercial where the traditionalist architect is rapping and jumps off the stage to a crowd of three is probably not to far from reality.  I know that from my own experience at my home club, when I talk about the dangers of the arms race and the benefits of walking, I feel like I am jumping off-stage onto a concrete cart path with nobody to catch me.

What I am doing for about the third straight year is paying my USGA dues late, and sending them a nice letter with my veiled threat that continued inaction on the important issues will result in my withdrawal of further support (to which somebody in NJ is probably just rolling his eyes and pitching my letter along with a few others into the waste basket).  Just like clockwork, my late notices and reminders keep coming, and I keep writing checks.

Maybe it does take Geoff's approach and a few zealots at the right times and places to change an erroneous majority position.  In the absence of that, we can always play "conforming" equipment among ourselves and influence those clubs where we can to disregard the temptation to participate in the race.

[TEPaul]

This Russian Tea Room thing should not be part of this discussion on the distance problem and how that relates to architecture now and in the future. Talk about real apples and oranges!

The Russian Tea Room thing in the final analysis is probably better off the way it's going now--that is the USGA dropping the damn NYC museum thing altogether. None of us really know how the price they paid stacks up to what they might get for it under another use. That's not getting into real estate speculating simply the disposition of what may have been a necessary asset for them.

Why did they get into that project in the first place? Two reasons. 1. To better protect the historic assets they have now in a controlled atmosphere so those assets wouldn't continue to disintegrate in the uncontrolled (atmospheric) atmosphere they presently have in Far Hills. 2. To allow about ten times more people to see those historic assets since NYC is more accessible to so many more people than Far Hills.

Those are both admirable goals. So they ran into the bureaucratic labrynth that is the State of NY and certainly the city of NYC. God knows what kind of permitting and costs, massive museum restrictions et al, you name it, that were involved. NY and NYC are strange places to do real estate business in sometimes! Just ask Ken Bakst about that!

Why didn't they do better due diligence on the RTR before closing and figuring what all they were up against? Good question but do any of you know what kind of price it was they paid for that place? I bet no one on here has the remotest idea about that. What if they were handed a sweet-heart deal to pick that place up for cash with limted contingencies to close the deal?

I can tell you right now that Gleacher et al did not do as well in life and make as much money for the USGA as he did by being an idiot in business--I can assure you of that!

And don't be thrown a curve ball thinking that the revenue the USGA generates has anything to do with the fact that they're a non profit. Revenue isn't the point--what they end up using that revenue for is the point.

The attempt to buy TRT was for the purpose of taking the awesome collection of historical assets they do have and trying to make them available to far more people for the enjoyment of all those people who presumably care about golf. That right there falls nicely into the category of "For the Good of the Game" if you hadn't thought of that!

Frankly from the sound of what they got put through in NYC after buying the RTR I'm sort of glad to see them drop it. The thing probably would've been a money pit for the rest of time.

But this discussion should be about the distance problem and GeoffShac's message to that effect not the RTR.

[Robert_Walker]

Geoff Shackelford,
1 What, in you view, is Hannagan's most important accomplishment?
2 When did you first realize that the USGA had lost control?

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Lou,
Could you expand on what this means: "I have trouble visualizing a grown man who relishes making crank phone calls while walking a "Top Ten" course also being a zealot on a righteous crusade." You've lost me on that one.

Tom,
I have to respectfully disagree with respect to the Tea Room. I think it speaks to the issue of the organization's mission, and how such forays have distracted them from the core issue of understanding why their role in equipment regulation is vital to maintaining a healthy sport. The organization seems distracted on the technology issue, or at least, the distractions keep taking their focus away from discussion and action on the most important topic at hand.

Robert,
Ah I wondered when you'd chime in! In my recent research and in talking to some USGA folks, I think Hannigan's most important accomplishment was managing Frank Thomas and utilizing his talents. I realize I have misunderstood the work that Mr. Thomas did and some of his past statements compared to what he was doing behind the scenes to prepare the USGA so they'd be ready to address some of the advances that have seemingly surprised them. As for when I realized when they had lost control, the book I'm writing starts out with a Preface explaining just that. I don't want to spoil it for you.
Geoff

[Tim_Weiman]

Geoff:

For some reason I've never become too excited about the Russian Tea Room thing. I agree it does seem like a distraction from the USGA's core mission, but also probably share Tom Paul's view that it is also a distraction from the current discussion about the USGA's failure to address the technology issue.

I really want to see you succeed in raising awareness about the USGA's failure to address technology. Thus, I'd probably recommend forgetting about the RTR thing. Just explaining to people how silly the golf technology arms race is seems challenging enough. Why not try to fight and win one battle - not just any battle, but the most important one?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()