[Geoff_Shackelford]

Tim,
I agree, and the Tea Room mistake is only a page or so in this book and I hope they can unload it and refocus on making a case for regulation of distance (unfortunately, their first case, "Phase II" isn't going to do much). I still believe it and inconsistency in amateur status principles speak to a larger picture of inconsistency in the USGA mission. It seems Frank Hannigan made a lot of enemies by always trying to keep them away from drifting, and obviously lost on some (getting into the handicapping business, for instance).

My overall focus is making the argument that deregulation has impacted golf in just the way it has in other failed industries deregulated in the name of "liberation." As in those other industries, the overall good have been forgotten and with that ignorance of the customer's price boundaries, comes great financial pain to those who wanted to be free in the first place. I think there is a strong case for the USGA to make by pointing to analogies of other deregulated industries, but how many of those folks who have a say in this actually believe in the benefits of regulatory agencies? That may be the crux of all these problems. We have regulators who don't believe in regulation.
Geoff

[TEPaul]

"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."

Geoff:

Certainly I see your point about that but I just can't agree that it's TRT that's even remotely slowing the USGA down on any resolution to the distance issue. To me those two things truly are apples and oranges. If they didn't have one single other thing on their plate I'd still expect them to be dragging their feet on the distance problem as they have been for the same reasons they have been.

The reasons that's happening, has happened in the past has to do with a wide variety of problems and obstacles, at least problems and obstacles that they see, that has nothing more to do with issues other than those that involve the problems and solutions of the distance problem directly. It has nothing to do with the other things they're into, in my opinion.

TRT and a blown deal in NYC doesn't impact that whatsoever in my opinion. In other words that organization really is capable of walking, talking, acting on the distance problem and chewing gum at the same time--that is if they can see their way clear to overcoming those problems and obstacles they see on that one issue in and of itself. Frankly, in fairness to them, I believe there's far more we all need to know about what all exactly goes on in their world of attempting to get a real handle on this distance problem and to control this I&B world into the future.

Don't think I'm selling out on my support that something needs to be done by them on the distance issue now, because I'm not. Don't think I'm cowtowing to or cossetting the USGA for some reason either because I'm not doing that either--I hope.

It's just that I see them in a different light than most people do apparently. I've tried to deal with them on some other issues over the years and I can clearly see now that when you approach them it's not wise to come at them with ideas completely out of the blue without truly understanding what they are and how they need to operate even under the most ideal conditions. They don't operate under the most ideal conditions for them any longer and one needs to be completely cognescent of why and how that is. In a quick sentence if you or anyone wants to deal with them effectively and help solve some of the problems you think they have you just have to understand their problems and obstacles as they see them not just as you or I see them. Only then can you effectively work on solutions and obstacle removal that they'll buy into. And at that point they will, have and do buy into a process of problem solving.

But they need our support on this issue just as much as we need them now. It can be done but at this point there probably needs to be a ton more organization to generate that support. That's why I keep talking to you about this convocation idea--that needs to be as much as anything a massive public relations effort (public bigtime) to generate that support for a good resolution to a distance problem and what not solving it will ultimately mean to the playing fields of golf and even the strength of the game.

My basic feeling is if they thought yesterday, today or tomorrow they had that support they'd move hard to solve this thing yesterday or today. I believe that. I think support--voluntary support--is the life's blood of that organization, always has been and always will be--and they more than any of us understand that. The whole concept of the USGA is built around voluntary support--as they definitely are not the law of golf as so many of us assume they are for some unknown reason. Support is needed here--a two way street kind of support. I think if they felt they had that they would go public bigtime on this issue and they still do have enough cache, as you said yesterday, to call all the entities of golf together now and work hard on resolving this issue in a very public forum--and that includes all of us!

I'd be very curious to know if some one of us went to them or got someone they respect to go to them right now and tell them we're willing and probably ready to generate that kind of support---what they'd say and what they'd do.

Maybe that right there is the best next step!

[Tim_Weiman]

Geoff,

My professional experience in the oil industry included a great deal of interest in the entire subject of regulation, so for more reasons than one I look forward to reading your work.

For what it's worth, regulation in the oil industry had an interesting history. We typically think of Republicans as being pro business and Democrats as being inclined to regulate in support of the consumer. That's why we always hear so many complaints from the Left about the Bush/Cheney connection to the oil industry.

But, the real story is different. In the 1970s a long list of very complicated regulations were imposed by the Republican Administrations of Nixon and Ford. Conversely, the elimination of all those regulations came under the Democratic Administration of Jimmy Carter who looked at all the well intended regulations put in place by Republicans and decided none of them made any sense. The only shame is that people actually thought Ronald Reagan was responsible as a crusader against anti business regulations.

But, that's another story. When it comes to golf, I do think we need more stringent regulations on technology. Personally I would favor a tournament ball and giving up the fiction that amateur weekend golfers play the same game as professional or leading amatuer quality players. We don't.

Evidence that the golf technology arms race ,makes no sense can be found in diverse locations such as Torrey Pines and Oakmont. Who the hell needs 7,500 yard courses? Why waste the money creating such monsters? Isn't it far more logical to simply introduce a tournament ball and eliminate the need for golf clubs to spend money changing their golf course to accomodate out of control technology?

The essence of the game is the BALANCE between player skill, technology and the playing field. If player skill has increased, that is all the more reason why "new" or "improved" technology is NOT needed. My God, aren't Tiger and his Tour colleagues good enough that they don't need Pro V1s?

Somehow we have to get people to understand that relative length - not absolute length - is what matters. A 325 yard drive is no better than a 275 yard drive if technology is behind the distance improvement. All that does is require money to be spent adjusting the golf course. Shouldn't the USGA be leading the argument against such nonsense?

Again, we don't need 7,500 yard golf courses. I doubt we need 7,000 golf courses. I'll bet 80 percent can be accommodated with 6,300 yard courses. Take that figure to 6,800 yards and the percentage of golfers adequately challenged goes up to 98%. So, why waste money on land, maintenance and course "improvements" just to accommodate a small elite minority? Isn't a competition ball a far better solution?

I don't buy into the notion that the USGA has to worry so much about lawsuits that they can't act. Baloney. If they want to require people to play in USGA championships with purple golf balls, they can. No court has any business stopping them and they won't. More seriously, if the USGA simply set specs that would put long drives in the 275 yard range, no court could stop them. The US Open is not the Callaway or Titleist Open. It is a USGA event. The USGA, not the manufacturers, has every right to detemine its own rules.

As I meet and talk to golfers - people who clearly love the game - one thing stands out:

They want to PLAY MORE not PAY MORE.

The USGA owes it to the little guy, the ordinary golfer to to put in place a simple set of regulations so that can be done. People playing either Torrey Pines or Oakmont should not be subsidizing professional golfers. Whenever money is spent "upgrading" the golf courses to accomodate new technology, that is what is happening: a subsidy for those with a wealth of skills (and probably money as well). It is a total waste of the average Joe's money.

No wonder Titleist ads make fun of golf architects. They really are trying to obscure how technology is hurting the average Joe. The manufacturers don't want people to see this. They don't want any accounting of how silly the golf technoilogy arms race is.

Okay, enough. I'll be accused of my own "diatribe"!

[George Pazin]

Great diatribe, Tim.

[A_Clay_Man]

I really like the tough love platform. But as Tep illustrates hitting'em over the head with the wrong fruit, is just that, apple and oranges.
Geoff-
As Deep throat prompted, "follow the money". Questions as to how a non prof could amass a treasure chest of this magnitude, should be of interest to everyone. Especially those handing out the status.

 If the usga was broke would anyone sue them?

With 150m in the bank, i'll bet there are sharks up all night, everynight, trying to figure a way to get it.

 How does an org  carry on, with business as usual, without cutting somewhere, someone and saving that kind of bling?

 It undermines any notion of volunteering or setting a higher example. If golf can't set a higher example of conduct, it's just another "industry". A term which should forever be stricken from any golf related venture.

So, as you can see, the wrong turn did happen back around lungfish.

[DMoriarty]

Mr. Seward,

You ask a legitimate question, and express a view that I am sure is held my many up and down the golfing hierarchy.  I am not going to bother to defend Geoff, because he and others have done an admirable job of that.

Having said that, I hope you don't mind if I pose my own question, the answer to which I have never been able to figure out:

Why doesn't the USGA and the golf establishment like Geoff?

Please let me explain what I mean. . . The USGA's mission is to act "for the good of the game," and two of its main goals are to preserve golf's history and to ensure golf's future.  Is there anyone out there who is more concerned with the good of the game, or who is more devoted to preserving golf's history and ensuring it's future than Geoff?   So why the hard feelings?

It just cannot be personal.  I think to much of the USGA to even consider the notion that its decision-makers would let personality and hurt feelings get in the way of the good of the game.   Surely Mr. Shackelford is not the first opinionated and outspoken individual that the USGA has come across in the past 100+ years.  

And it cannot be because Geoff has nothing intelligent, accurate, or original to say.  For years now Geoff has been telling all of us just exactly where these technological advancements are leading us, and most of what he has been predicting has come to fruition, has it not?  Yet again this year there have been significant jumps in the distances the ball is flying.   Our greatest treasures have been modified and lengthened, then modified and lengthened, then modified and lengthened.  Again and again, yet still they cannot keep up.  Just imagine . . . Oakmont (Oakmont!) is substantially lengthened, yet it is still not long enough even for the Amateurs . . . so now it is to be lengthened/altered yet again?!  Geoff saw all this coming when not many out there did.  

So why is it that they don't like him or recognize that he might have something pretty important to say?  I

For that matter, why isn't the USGA asking for Geoff's input?  Why aren't they recognizing and highlighting his work and accomplishments?  Why aren't they publishing his books and touting his ideas (giving him proper credit, of course?)  And why isn't the USGA calling out those who are doing work in the USGA's name and saying, "Wait a minute, how do you respond to what this guy has been saying for a long time?  Why aren't we embracing his ideals?  After all, aren'twe supposed to be protecting the game?"  

To go even further, why isn't the USGA financing a Geoff Shackelford lecture series?  Why not send him around the country lecturing to the golfing public and hierarchy just what has been happening, and why it is so important that we deal with it?   Have him speak at all the USGA's Championship's, to the volunteers, to the golfers, to the spectators.  Let Geoff explain why golf's history is its future, and how we desperately need to understand the former to be able to progress into the latter.  

Mr. Seward, I really like your idea of a debate between Geoff and officials of the USGA.  But perhaps "debate" connotes too much hostility and disagreement; after all the USGA and Geoff ultimately want the same thing.  

Perhaps it would be more useful to hold a forum or summit involving all the interested parties:  the USGA, the historians and activists like Geoff, the manufacturers, representatives from some of the courses who have the most to lose, and some Joe Golfer-types.  Nothing wishy washy, but an attempt to really hash out some of these issues and problems in a constructive forum, for the good of the game.

   
Regards,

David Moriarty

[Patrick_Mucci]

Geoff Shackelford,

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.

I think that the USGA is capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time.  They're a fairly large organization with some depth, hence I think they're capable of multiple tasks.

I think your core issue is diluted and harmed, by harping on the RTR.
Whether it was a success or failure, financially, and to what degree, will be determined when it is eventually sold.

I believe you should focus on the other issues, which are far more important, and let the RTR go, it only acts as a drogue, impeding your progress on the vital issues.

Fifty seventh street is history, it's the future that is your/our MAJOR concern.

I's also suggest that you de-personalize the issues by removing David Fay as the chief protagonist.

Let your points stand on their merits, without introducing distractions that dilute or deflect your arguments.

P.S.  How does it feel to enjoy "most favored Nation" status on this site ?  

Mike Sweeney,

I've been an advocate of the "Augusta" tournament ball for years.

A ball that could be adopted by the USGA, and in turn by every regional, state, and local golf association, and then by the individual clubs.

Hootie, could be GOLF"S salvation  

[TEPaul]

According to a source of mine at a national publication of import---not too long ago, Hootie and 4-5 other heavy hitters in the world of golf influence were prepared to not only float the idea but to offer an ANGC golf ball (presumably for use in that invitational tournament alone) that was significantly dialed down distance-wise.

These few influential men were gung-ho to do this and this national magazine of import was apparently prepared to publicize and push this concept in the name of controlling and possibly solving, to some degree, this recent distance problem.

Everybody was expectant and then apparently in an instance--"poof" it was all dropped and the idea was history.

What happened?

Good question but one should probably start by carefully reading the USGA/R&A's latest statement on the issue of equipment (balls and impliments). In fairly certain terms within that statement those two organizations state that they are not prepared to give up on the ages old fundamental that ALL equipment for players of all levels should be regulated under a single unified standard!

So for now, at least, it seems the regulating organizations don't want to entertain the idea of two separate I&B rules and regulations standards and that would include a so-called "competition" or "ANGC" ball for use by the high level players.

So it would seem that if ANGC chose to make and require use of such a ball in the Masters tournament that they might be going outside the USGA/R&A purview if they did that. Is that what stopped them?

No major competition, club, association et al has ever done something like that before that I'm aware of (except obviously in the dark ages of golf and golf organization that preceded organizational unity)---eg going outside the purview of the world's two I&B ruling bodies (USGA/R&A). Is that something we want to see happen now?

If a ball such as an "ANGC ball" took off and became somewhat popular throughout golf would not that put ANGC itself into some form of I&B competition with the USGA/R&A if those two organizations did not embrace such a concept (which would necessarily include two separate I&B standards?) within their own I&B rules and regulations?

There's more--there's another facet in that recent USGA/R&A statement which, potentially, to me at least, may be remarkable, if I understand it correctly, or, even if, they do.

Later--

[TEPaul]

This is the R&A/USGA's new "Joint Statement of Principles". Although there's no date on it, I assume it's very recent;

JOINT STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES

As the governing authorities for the Rules of Golf including equipment Rules, The Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St Andrews (R&A) and the United States Golf Association (USGA) have continued to monitor closely the effects of advancing equipment technology on the playing of the game. The R&A and the USGA are also aware that this subject has attracted wide-ranging comment and a number of conflicting views. History has proved that it is impossible to foresee the developments in golf equipment that advancing technology will deliver. It is of the greatest importance to golf's continuing appeal that such advances are judged against a clear and broadly accepted series of principles.

The purpose of this statement is to set out the joint views of the R&A and the USGA, together with the framework of key principles and policies which guide their actions.

In a historical context, the game has seen progressive developments in the clubs and balls available to golfers who, through almost six centuries, have sought to improve their playing performance and enjoyment.

While generally welcoming this progress, the R&A and the USGA will remain vigilant when considering equipment Rules. The purpose of the Rules is to protect golf's best traditions, to prevent an over-reliance on technological advances rather than skill, and to ensure that skill is the dominant element of success throughout the game.

The R&A and the USGA continue to believe that the retention of a single set of rules for all players of the game, irrespective of ability, is one of golf's greatest strengths. The R&A and the USGA regard the prospect of having permanent separate rules for elite competition as undesirable and have no current plans to create separate equipment rules for highly skilled players.

Golf balls used by the vast majority of highly skilled players today have largely reached the performance limits for initial velocity and overall distance which have been part of the Rules since 1976. The governing bodies believe that golf balls, when hit by highly skilled golfers, should not of themselves fly significantly further than they do today. In the current circumstances, the R&A and the USGA are not advocating that the Rules relating to golf ball specifications be changed other than to modernize test methods.

The R&A and the USGA believe, however, that any further significant increases in hitting distances at the highest level are undesirable. Whether these increases in distance emanate from advancing equipment technology, greater athleticism of players, improved player coaching, golf course conditioning or a combination of these or other factors, they will have the impact of seriously reducing the challenge of the game. The consequential lengthening or toughening of courses would be costly or impossible and would have a negative effect on increasingly important environmental and ecological issues. Pace of play would be slowed and playing costs would increase.

The R&A and the USGA will consider all of these factors contributing to distance on a regular basis. Should such a situation of meaningful increases in distances arise, the R&A and the USGA would feel it immediately necessary to seek ways of protecting the game.

In determining any future amendments to the Rules, or to associated procedures which may from time to time prove necessary, the R&A and the USGA will continue their respective policies of consultation with interested parties, including the use of notice and comment procedures, and will take account of the views expressed. The achievement and maintenance of worldwide uniformity in equipment rules through close coordination between the R&A and the USGA is a clear priority.

The R&A and the USGA are concerned that, on an increasing number of occasions, new products are being developed and marketed which potentially run counter to the principles expressed in this statement. These product launches, without prior consultation with the governing bodies, can lead to considerable difficulties in formulating appropriate equipment rules and to undesirable conflicts between manufacturers and rule makers. The R&A and the USGA intend to bring forward proposals designed to improve procedures for the approval of new products.

The R&A and the USGA believe that the principles stated in this document will, when carefully applied, serve the best interests of the game of golf.
 

 
 
 
 

[TEPaul]

Note that heretofore, in any statement of principles involving I&B rules and regulations that the rules making bodies stated that it was basically only the effects of technology that they were interested in monitoring and contolling and not "skill" (athleticism)!

But now it appears they may be interested in monitoring and controlling all aspects of distance production--INCLUDING "skill" (athleticism)!!

This, to me anyway, would signify a remarkable change in principles! This may signify they may now be getting ready to attempt to halt distance increase right here for the rest of time!

And you should also note that they explain they're attempting to do this in the name of preservation of the traditions of the game, including, as they say, the playing fields of the game.

Do they fully understand the implication of this "Joint Statement of Principles"? Does this mean that although they may not consider any kind of roll-back on distance from here that this is the point where distance increases stop--no matter what--for the rest of time?

That's what it sounds like to me. But how will they determine all that? How will they test all that? Does this mean in their minds and intended principles that some absolute animal who may be able to swing at 150mph will NOT be able to hit the ball past X yardage that they may determine as the maximum allowable distance limit.

I hope they realize all they're saying or at least implying here because frankly, it sounds remarkable to me.

Maybe this just might be where distance increase ends once and for all!

[Dan Kelly]

Of Geoff Shackelford (and anyone else critical of the USGA and the R&A), I ask:

Presuming (a large presumption, I know -- but for the sake of discussion, I'm asking you to make it) that the USGA and the R&A were to enforce this JOINT STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES to the letter, what fault(s) do you find with those principles?

[TEPaul]

Dan:

I, for one, would find no fault whatsoever with these Principles or the USGA/R&A if they could and did enforce these principles to the letter.

How could anyone really? Does not this appear to you, from what those Principles are saying or implying, that this might be the end of distance increase?

The Priniciples sound remarkable to me, but of course I, like everyone, will be fascinated to see how they think they can both determine a limit, certainly on "SKILL" (athletecism) and monitor or test it. The inclusion of "SKILL" (athleticism) as something they intend to monitor and control in the future is frankly staggering to me--it's such a departure from what they'e ever tried to do before! That's a huge departure from anything they've ever contemplated heretofore in I&B rules and regs in a ODS context.

While admitting this "Joint Statement of Principles" does not mention a single thing about a rollback of distance limitations from here, and would mean we'd be saddled with the prospect of the occassional 340 yd drive, at the very least a cap on distance from here should be extremely workable, all things considered, and if acheived should mean architecture (most anyway) should be safe from the eternal cycle of redesign in the name of lenghtening to continually accomodate increased distance!

I think, in principle or theory anyway, this is a remarkable "Joint Statement of Principles" Now let's see how they plan to put it into effect or when!

[TEPaul]

Dan:

There's a lot of implication in that statement if one reads carefully enough.

In the one paragraph when they talk about all the things they plan to monitor and control in the name of limiting future  distance increases here's one that sure might make me nervous;

"Whether these increases in distance emanate from advancing equipment technology, greater athleticism of players, improved player coaching, GOLF COURSE CONDITONING or a combination of these or other factors,......"

What about that mention of 'golf course conditioning"? What the hell is that supposed to mean---that they're going to recommend that courses should turn the water on all over the world and soften playing conditions up so the ball won't travel farther along the ground??

Frankly, that's one facet of their new comprehensive principles I just might recommend they remove from this joint statement!

[TEPaul]

"The R&A and the USGA will consider all of these factors contributing to distance on a regular basis. Should such a situation of meaningful increases in distances arise, the R&A and the USGA would feel it immediately necessary to seek ways of protecting the game."

This paragraph, if I'm reading its implication correctly, would seem to be the warning shot that if anything happens in the way of distance increase in the future from manufacturers, players, course conditioning, whatever, that this is the context for some future rollbacks.

Of course that word "meaningful" might be one that will come back to haunt us all! When they get into defining what exactly this remarkable new apparent ODS really is maybe they'd better exactly define what they mean by "meaningful increases in distances"!

Could this mean that while they recognize that manufacturers will always come down the line with new equipment that they can't forsee or imagine, much less stop before it's R&Ded and possibly in the manufacturing pipeline that this warning means that if it involves "meaningful increases in distances"--involving exactly defined limitations of course that this is the R&A/USGA's warning and excuse or reason to either make it automatically non-conforming or to roll it back?

Carefully defined, "meaningful increases in distances" could be something any lawyer or even judge could point to in the event of a lawsuit from a manufacturer!

From what I've seen I think they should deem both Hank and Trip Kuehne "non-conforming" right now. Of course their sister could continue to play.  

[ForkaB]

Tom

All that the USGA/R&A statement says to me is:

1.  We're going to "draw a line in the sand" and not allow any significant increases in distance
2.  We understand that lines drawn in the sand are prone to shifting, through wind, tide, Wally Uhlien/Hank Kuehne and/or whatever/whomever, so we reserve our right to change our mind as to what constitutes that "line."
3.  We don't want, ourselves, to have any sort of double standards

To me it's an attempt (and a pretty well reasoned one) to play Cnut and try to hold back the tide.  It is not, however, anything that is going to bring Merion (say) back into the Open rota.  If we stop where we are now, we are still going to need those 7500 yard courses to provide "tests of golf" for the elite players, by most people's standards.

One thing it does NOT do (nor could it do) is stop ANGC from introducing their own "tournament" ball.  All the USGA could do if that were to happen (and then only if that tournament ball were "non-conforming) would be to not allow the amateurs who play in the Masters to post their scores............

[TEPaul]

Rich:

Why would the USGA be concerned about deeming an ANGC ball (with posting for handicap purposes or not) non-conforming? Generally the USGA is concerned about balls above the ODS line not below it.

"One thing it does NOT do (nor could it do) is stop ANGC from introducing their own "tournament" ball."

Oh really? Well, it seems quite probable that they just have!  

[ForkaB]

Tom

If they did so, it was under the table in some sort of backroom deal and not through any Rules making power that they have.  They have no such power to stop ANGC from doing whatver they want to in their lil' ole' Invitational tournament each year.  Others seem to have been saying differently.  That's all I wanted to clarify.

[TEPaul]

Rich:

Stop yakking about some nefarious backroom deals. Hootie, Vickers and some of those other influential men can do whatever they want to do but as I've been saying for years the entire USGA and its B&I rules and regs are built on VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE--it's always been that way. People follow them because they want to not because they absolutely have to--in the sense that if they don't the USGA is going to throw some law book at them--because they ain't got one!

Did it ever occur to you that it's possible that Hootie and the Boys may have given up on their ANGC ball idea because they may have been given some kind of quid pro quo? Do you think some of that "quid" just may be found in that new R&A/USGA Joint Statement of Principles" printed in this thread above?

[ForkaB]

Tom

Nope.

"Quid pro quo" is just a fancy way of saying "backroom deal" IMHO.  From what you have reported and implied, I'd say the USGA/R&A got Augusta and the "competition ball" issue (their apparent opposition to which I find quaint but flawed) off their backs and Hootie got a deal which means he's probably not going to have to make any more land swaps to get new Championship tee sites for his course.  Perhaps a win/win for the blazered juntas, but for the rest of us and particularly the courses we love...........

[Bruce Katona]

Tim Weiman: Your opinion and our observations concur. 95% of our customers are more than challenged playing the regular men's tees at 6200-6400 yards. The customer is looking for the following to become a regualr repeat customer (golfer):
1. Availability of a reasonable tee time.
2. Friendly customer service.
3. Good course conditions (chiefly tees and greens in superior condition. They will tolerate something less than perfection in the fairways.)
4. The ability to play tee to green in "regulation" - drive and approach on a par 4 and on in 3 with a par 5. Greens can be quick or have contouring. This customer will tolerate 3 putting if they reach in regulation.
5. Feeling of value for their money, which is the combination of the above and final score. If the customer has an enjoyable experience and ultimately scores well, he/she will be a repeat customer. Most of our customers are challenged to break 90 and many will only break 100 on their best days, but they are loyal to their clubs as they receive value for their dollar.
6. These customers are the majority of the consumers purchasing much of this new equipment. It is our observation the only thing it has helped is the equipment manufacturers. In playing, you would not believe where many of the $60/dozen balls are found (I am generally looking for one of my guests wayward shots, not one of mine.).

If the game and operators focussed on the above 6 observations, the game would doing a better service to retaning the customer base it currently has and perhaps growing it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

So it would seem that if ANGC chose to make and require use of such a ball in the Masters tournament that they might be going outside the USGA/R&A purview if they did that. Is that what stopped them?

I don't think that would be the case at all.

If ANGC chose to "adopt" a competition ball, the chances are that they adopt a USGA conforming ball, vintage 1970-1980-1990.

Manufacturers introduce new balls all the time, submiting them to the USGA for approval.

If ANGC adopted a pre-approved ball proto-type, I see no conflicts with the USGA and ANGC and their new/old competition ball.

It would appear to be the simplest of solutions

[TEPaul]

So Rich, you're then saying that if the R&A/USGA held distance to the present level for the rest of time that's not good enough for you and that you think they should roll back distance limtitations from where we are right now and hold it under our present limit for the rest of time? Well, that's certainly one way of looking at it.

Pat:

I do see your point. However, are you saying if an ANGC type ball that presumably would have specs involving distance limitation rollback of X percent (perhaps something like 10%) actually became used generally in competition across America and perhaps other recreational play prevalently that the USGA should not be concerned about that because a ball below the established ODS limits shouldn't really be of concern? Is that what you're saying?

I guess I could see that scenario. But what would you make of it's effects on handicapping since present  ODS limitation balls would still be used? A 10% rollback on a 250yd drive, for instance, would be 25 yds. And extrapolate that through a player's round. Is that something you think should not be reflected in handicapping? If you think, though, that a rollback that significant should be reflected in handicapping, then, in effect, the R&A/USGA are into a de facto situation of two sets of I&B standards--at least in the area of handicapping which is a pretty significant area in the world of golf.

[TEPaul]

"Tom
Nope.
"Quid pro quo" is just a fancy way of saying "backroom deal" IMHO.  From what you have reported and implied, I'd say the USGA/R&A got Augusta and the "competition ball" issue (their apparent opposition to which I find quaint but flawed) off their backs and Hootie got a deal which means he's probably not going to have to make any more land swaps to get new Championship tee sites for his course.  Perhaps a win/win for the blazered juntas, but for the rest of us and particularly the courses we love...........

Rich;

You do have a negative and doomish way of looking at most things, don't you?

Perhaps before getting too pessimistic on the USGA you should review some of the stuff the R&A did in the last few years or hie on over to see some of the R&A board at TOC. I spent a few days with a bunch of them last week and they are truly delightful people but I do wonder about their initiative here. It might do you good to review their previous COR stance too until the rift was finally mended.

You do know, don't you, that they denied that anything was there on the COR issue, for instance?

I swear sometimes I wonder if the R&A didn't think "spring-like effect" was just some fat kid jumping on a trampoline and that COR was maybe some sort of resuscitation procedure on a golf course!

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Dan,
The principles sound great, except that all of the "would" and "will" topics have already occurred and done damage. There are also some interesting ideas expressed that run counter to their actions and philosophy as stated by the Executive Director and recent presidents. Frank Hannigan's July column in the Scotsman still focuses on the one problem that really will be tough to overcome.

Hannigan: "Buried deep in the USGA spin job is the news that, no matter what, no ball currently approved by the USGA and R&A will be struck from the list. Nothing will happen."

The situation we are in now has fundamentally altered the way golf is played on the competitive level and of course, the companies are delighted because the change is seeping into the recreational game. The equipment is no longer simply a means to demonstrate skill. Having the most up-to-date and well-matched combination is as important as skill. The talk each week is not how a guy is playing, but how he's changed to a new driver and feels really good about his chances. The NASCARization of golf. But even NASCAR wouldn't redo all of their tracks to accomodate a new Chevy engine, or continue to let accidents happen with speeds created by the engine that are just too far out of control for their current drivers and tracks to handle. Yet the USGA is saying, we won't let it go any further than this, while not addressing what they've already let happen (The new ball test does not appear to be as efficient or comprehensive as the Frank Thomas "optimization" test that would have legitimately enforced the concept put forth in the statement of principle).

The USGA and R&A did not see this transition to equipment dominance in the sport even though it happened over several years, and even though power sucked the life right out of tennis. The USGA's late Golf Journal even published comments from Dick Rugge acknowledging the tennis-power-20 million decline in participation example.

I still wonder if much of this comes down to a philosophic conflict. Many on the folks involved here are simply so pro-business and so anti-regulation in other business arenas, that they are living in fear of possibly impacting someone's bottom line. That's a problem if you are a regulatory agency trying to balance an equation for the overall good. And also a problem for people like me who subscribe to the point of view that the "bottom-line" is enhanced by a sport rewarding all-around skill, a sport that can be played in a reasonable amount of time and at a fair cost. Those are all elements affected by having allowed technology and corporations to have too much influence. Oddly, bottom lines are hurting even though they've gotten their way.

Tom,
The course conditioning line is a Titleist mantra in all of its press releases sent out to claim distance increases are not harmful and are not just caused by the ball.  The USGA and folks at some of the bigger publications repeat the mantra a little too often for comfort (see John Antonini's comments in this week's Golf World, yet another example of using high scores to measure the character and quality of the golf played).

Have courses ever been softer in the history of the sport? No. And yet somehow they are playing shorter because of conditioning?

I suspect the course conditioning comment was meant to relate to improved scoring, not distance.

This kind of misstatement is yet another example of why the current USGA regime is failing the sport. They are either buying into manufacturer spin, not very aware of what is going on, extremely conflicted in presenting a unified position that genuine respects tradition, or they are spending too much time looking for ways to deflect blame instead of solving problems.

And if ANGC were to have adopted a "Masters" ball, it would have been an embarrassment to the USGA even though Hannigan's "local rule" concept makes it all SO simple and logical. Considering how many USGA folks are now influential members of ANGC, it's not a surprise the idea was dropped. Plus, it sounds like they're having too much fun changing the fixing that lousy old wide, non-penal design!
Geoff

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Let's suppose that ANGC adopted a ball with performance characteristics similar to balls circa 1980, to be their competition ball, the only ball approved for play in The Masters.

The USGA could then adopt that ball as their competition ball for all USGA competitions.

All regional, state and local golf associations could then adopt that ball as their competition ball.

Lastly, Individual clubs could then adopt that ball as their competition ball.

Golfers who play in competitions would gravitate toward playing the competition ball all of the time.  I think that an almost osmotic effect would cause many non-tournament golfers to use the ball as well.

You may recall, a number of years ago, a company was marketing a super-ball, a non-approved, high performance ball, and that other companies were advertising, the "ball" that the USGA doesn't want you to play.  

If a golfer was caught using a ball such as this for "friendly" games, he was ostracized.  I suspect, that over time, the same ostracization would occur.

I believe that the above scenario is the simplest, straightest, least legal path to returning "distance" to reasonable levels.

Just this past weekend, several good players that I met, including some who enjoy the power game, were indicating that something has to be done about distance.

ANGC could return the game to the intended playing fields.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()