[Tommy_Naccarato]

John, The reason why it is presented so harsh is because it has to penetrate those iron-shelled craniums underneth the standard issue P.J. Boatwright bucket hats.

And it still isn't getting through.

[Andy]

Agree with Tommy here.  Further, it is time for people in the industry, leaders of the golf development and management companies, PGA Tour players, and golf course architects to finally speak up, forcefully, in public with what they are already saying in private.  The USGA probably won't listen, as I think they are basically spineless, but at least then the pressure will increase.  Hats off to Geoff for being someone who will speak his mind, and I think, speak correctly.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

What's the saying Andy, "Pride cometh before the fall?"

I think it would be really appropos here.  Personally, I think in ten years time, we are going to still be here on GCA screaming for a tournament ball, and John Daley will lead the Champions Tour, or whatever they are going tobe calling it then, in driving distance with a 425 yards average--but that's alright!

And, the Russian Tee Room will still be sitting empty!

[Andy]

And Tommy, what is wrong with that?  As we have plenty of land and water, right?  No environmental or political issues to keep us from making course longer and WIDER, so let's encourage the long ball.  I heard chicks dig the long ball, so let's just keep it going.  John Daly at 425 yards, and perhaps Fred Funk at 390...

I just can't believe EVERY person who is a student and advocate of the great game of golf is not upset and angry with the USGA right now.  I must be missing something.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

No, They expect us to keep on sending in our $25.00 for the sticker we can put on the back of our car that represents the same thing the P.J. Boatwright hat does--STATURE.

There is nothing wrong with stature, as long as you've earned it by doing something right once in a while. While John V. (Who has earned it by volunteering his services above and beyond, as well as many others) speaks of the war chest, collecting interest mind you. What do they do? End the publication that used to make the membership worth it. I guess I mean that if the publication was losing money, yet they're out buying buildings! Sounds great!

I for one am not going to be a pigeon in this regard--I ended my membership years ago because I didn't like the way the equipment issues were being handled--That was 1997. Peace, love and support have gotten them nowhere, and I wish the VOLUNTEERS would help join the cause for reform. Especially before it is too late.

The clock is ticking.

[JohnV]

Tommy, do you honestly think that I haven't said things to the USGA people that I interact with about the loss of the Journal and other issues?  That topic probably came up at every one of the USGA family meetings that are held throughout the country this year.  For those that don't know, the USGA Regional Affairs people hold meetings with the USGA Committee Members in their regions each year.

[Patrick_Mucci]

John V,

In serving in the capacity of an Executive Committee member, does that person become liable, or subjectable to lawsuits from the manufacturers, should the USGA draw a line in the sand with respect to balls and equipment ?

While I'm sure that D&O insurance can be obtained, one would have to scrutinize the limits, conditions, exclusions and the ability of the carrier to adjust premiums, or cancel the policy during the policy year or at renewal.

If sufficient D&O insurance weren't available through the USGA, then each individual would be left to secure supplemental coverage in the form of personal insurance, and on top of that, put their net worth at risk.

Who amongst you would be so quick to pull the trigger ?

If the USGA adopted Geoff's platform, would he be willing to help foot the legal bills and liability incured as a result of any litigation ??      

[TEPaul]

Pat:

The USGA's D&O insurance is sufficient.

[MargaretC]

Patrick:

Typically, D&O insurance covers virtually any litigation that doesn't arise from criminal behavior.

Organizations purchase D&O coverage so that its Board can be held harmless.  In the case of most nonprofits, in addition to D&O coverage many local and state laws provide an additional safety net for nonprofit D&Os -- again, with the assumption that they acted in good faith.

Presuming good faith on the part of D&Os, the likelihood that anyone's net worth is at stake is slim to none.

Most nonprofits carry D&O coverage because it would be difficult to attract and sustain a significant contribution stream.  Most contributors are savvy enough to check before they contribute.

Nonprofit D&O coverage is relatively inexpensive assuming the nonprofit has a good track record.

[Tim_Weiman]

Margaret C:

Until your clarifying post about "what women have been saying for years" I missed your humor completely. God, we must be nuts if this golf thing distracts us from thinking about more important things!

JohnV:

Like you, I often struggle with the issue of subtance vs style. Moreover, it is more likely than not that I've communicated privately with Geoff on this matter.

But, I really don't see the issues as being a matter of diplomacy. Rather, I see things as a series of basic questions that need to be answered:

ISSUE #1 - Do we want to let the golf technology arms race continue?

Personally, I have no trouble with this one. This clear answer is no.

ISSUE #2 - Do we deal with golf clubs or the golf ball?

Again, I don't find this that difficult a question. I'd let people keep what has been done to equipment but strengthen enforcement measures to see that clubs are kept in check. The ball is where I'd opt for a serious change.

ISSUE #3 - Rollback or Competition Ball.

Honestly, I can't imagine how anyone believes professional golfers and top amateurs are playing the same game as the weekend golfer. That's complete fantasy.

Cuurent specifications for golf balls are not a problem for at least 95% of people playing the game. Thus, I see no reason for changing things for them. Let the manufacturers have this market as it is. The problem comes for a small elite. Their skills are such that when combined with current technology we have to build and maintain golf courses at ridiculous lengths, i.e., over 7,000 yards. It is a total waste of money that does nothing for the average Joe playing the golf course day to day.

The USGA simply needs to adopt the following commitment:

a) the essence of the game is the BALANCE between player skill, technology employed and the configuration of the playing field for the purpose of optimizing challenge, interest and fun

b) this balance should be achieved at the lowest possible cost to the golfing public - golfers want to play more not pay more

ISSUE #4 - Competition Ball Specifications

Pick something circa 1980 ish. Long drives should be in the 275 yard range. Average drives somewhere in the 260 yard range. There is no need for anything longer.

ISSUE #5 - Notice Period

The introduction of a competition ball should be accomplished in a maximum of 24 months and proceed with the following steps:

a) USGA announcement of intent to implement a competition ball rule at all USGA events

b) A six month comment period. Comment limited to specification issues and testing only. No further discussion of the entire issue.

c) A six month analysis of comments received

d) Announcement of specifications required for competition ball and the associated testing procedures

e) Implementation of new specs one year following spec announcement

John, as I've mentioned before this is essentially the model followed by environmental agencies (e.g., EPA, California Air Resources Board) to force oil refiners to produce cleaner burning fuels.

At some point you have to stop the discussion of whether it will be done and simply insist it WILL be done. Then, legitimate technical discussions follow. But, these discussions have to be legitimate. Not some effort to sand bag the whole intent of environmental legislation.

The oil analogy, though, only goes so far. Things are actually much easier for golf ball manufacturers in two important ways:

a) they don't need to develop new technology to meet the new regulations; they simply need to produce a product they produced years ago (By contrast, oil refiners had to develop new means to produce cleaner burning gasoline and invest billions of dollars to be able to do it.)

b) Golf ball manufacturers could still produce their current products for the non competition golf (By contrast, oil refiners could to clean up their entire product slate - at least to meet Federal level regulations.)


The bottom line is that we are not talking rocket science here. It is a matter of will and leadership. I'm not usually for getting personal, but the past several years have raised serious questions about the people running the USGA.

Do they have the will to address the golf technology arms race problem? Or will we keep hearing excuses why they are not yet ready to act?

[MargaretC]

 
Margaret C:

Until your clarifying post about "what women have been saying for years" I missed your humor completely. God, we must be nuts if this golf thing distracts us from thinking about more important things!

Tim:

Okay, remember, I'm a M.D. -- my Rx for you:  it's time to turn off your computer and find your spouse or get some rest now and find your spouse in the morning.  

[TEPaul]

How about if the contributors to this thread read carefully the new "Joint Statement of Principles" on post #33 and explain, at least, how that statement is flawed if they think it is. And also if they notice any differences in it from the previous principles of I&B standards?

If distance does not increase from here on out is that a positive at all in the minds of some of the contributors to this thread?

[jimhealey24]

Let's take a look at some of the issues the USGA has dealt with over the past few years and some of their decisions.

Sued PING and cost them a bundle
Dropped Palmer as spokesman - then reinstated him (politically correct?)
Preservers of the game who won't support regional golf museums outside of far hills
Dropped Golf Journal - online only and got rid of most of the staff
Don't have enough room in their museum to display even a portion of their vast collection - which made the RTR room seem like a good idea - until they looked into the renovation expenses and other issues.  Sort of like buying a home in a community and not reading the association agreements!  But won't criticize the RTR situation until the final tally is done.
Won't really address the golf ball issue - although some of the biggest names in the game have been telling them for years that that is the real problem.
So they won't/can't deal with the club issue without ticking off manufacturers and getting sued; won't deal with the ball issue - despite what they've been told - let's see, exactly what portion of the game are they preserving and protecting?  Oh, yeah, it must be the rules, they keep adding to them each year with their decisions so that must be what they are focusing on.  Or maybe it's the courses that are the real culprit.  Maybe if we just trick up the courses then we can still have even par win the open and we won't have to address the club-ball issue.  Yeah, that's it!  If only those old time architects had done their jobs correct then we wouldn't be in this situation.  So it's not our fault, it's really the fault of those designers that didn't take technology into account when they designed the courses years ago.  Yeah, that's really it!

Sounds a bit like a saturday night live routine!

JH

[DMoriarty]

Tom I think it would be a good idea to copy the USGA statement and start a new thread.  You are correct that we should ALL read it carefully and more might see it if you start a new thread.  

Perhaps jimhealey24 might not mind duping and copying his post if you start anew. . . .

[TEPaul]

I had a most interesting and edifying conversation yesterday for about an hour with Frank Thomas.

I'm probably as guilty as most anyone else on here of bouncing all over the place when attempting to, for instance, discuss the specifics of this distance problem with Frank or anyone else. He's a most courteous man but it doesn't take long to tell that he's much better than us on here at the process of attempting to specifically define a problem before one attempts to create a process of solving it.

I'm tiring of reading laundry lists of combined complaints about the USGA in the last whatever years, involving all the other things they do when one tries to discuss a specific problem--such as the distance problem.

There's plenty of complexity to even defining the specifics of this distance problem not to mention the complexities of what the solutions may be in the overall to it to launch into those extraneous laundry lists of complaints simultaneously.

One thing I do know is that continous litanies about the RTR, the 13 year old PING lawsuit, the personalities involved and laundry lists of every other single thing anyone out there thinks the USGA has done wrong is definitely not the way to go about discussing this distance problem not to mention  defining the specifics of that single problem!

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Paul:

Gosh, was that directed it me?

For the record, I'm not one of those much interested in the Russian Tea Room thing. Indeed, I'd prefer not to discuss the matter at all.

Moreover, I'm one of the few people here who has been a consistent supporter of the USGA on their set ups for the US Open (I just don't like the other majors imitating them).

But, what frustrates me about the distance issue is that the USGA seems to make it such a complicated issue as if they are the "experts" and we are dummies who couldn't possibly understand.

That kind of thing makes me suspicious that they really haven't tried to do anything or have just gotten themselves tied up in knot fretting over things that maybe aren't THAT complicated.

Tom, if we believe GCA should evolve to being a resource for Green Committees, then why not apply the same to issues like technology?

Why is this thing THAT complicated?

Does the USGA really believe doing nothing is good for golf?

Why are they so hung up on "bifurcation" and apparently opposed to the concept of the competition ball?

Do they not see the ball as the logical place to take a stand?

Do they really think setting specs for a competition ball would be that difficult?

Have they not studied the testing issue enough to have confidence establishing an adeqaute testing regime?

How long do they think the dialogue needs to go on?

Tom, there are times when management has to give their peole a little kick and jump start things. Whenever people keep coming back essentially saying "this thing is too complication", that's when management needs to earn its pay.

This issue can be solved. The intellectual horsepower does exist, I'm sure.

Finally, I get absolutely no pleasure bashing the USGA. It does nothing for me. I just want to see action taken. It has already gone on long enough.

[A.G._Crockett]

Oh, Shivas, you are indeed a voice in the wilderness!  I wish I had written that post!  I'm still waiting to see my first golfer forced at gunpoint to use a new $400 driver to launch a $45/dozen golf ball into orbit on a 7500 yd. course that cost the GDP of Bolivia to join/play!  Whatever happened to personal responsibility here?

Politically, I would assume that most that post on GCA are well to the conservative end of the spectrum.  I find it ironic that the hue and cry here is for what amounts to massive govt. intervention (o.k., the USGA is pseudo-govt.) into the game through strict regulation, and tighter control of the economic system.  I guess it is conservatism of convenience rather than conviction!

[Robert_Walker]

Geoff,
What did Frank Hannigan do or say when the metal headed woods made their debut?

[Dan Herrmann]

Let's face it - "Joe Golfer" loves hitting the ball a long way.  I was just watching a show on Fox Sports Denver this morning when an ad came on for Brekenridge golf - "Come here at 9500' elevation, and hit the ball farther than you ever have before!".  The didn't speak of the greens, the architecture, or the vistas.  It was the ability to hit the ball a heck of a long way.

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Robert,
You know I just can't cover for him any longer...it's ALL Frank Hannigan's fault! No one currently involved with the USGA has done wrong, it's that curmudgeonly Frank! He picked the current Executive Committee members, and he certainly hasn't offered any thoughtful solutions in writing to help resolve these issues!

We can argue this all day long and Robert, we will never agree. My premise in writing articles and a book comes down to this: added distance is not healthy for the sport, and the numbers confirm this. In 2000, the USGA dropped a ball test called optimization that was a more substantial test, but it would have required that the USGA deem certain equipment non-conforming. They dropped that test after manufacturers cried foul and thus, in my view, have made a monumental compromise. Worse, I feel that some within the USGA are  clouding the issue by changing great courses and pointing to scores near their dear old pal par as a barometer of golfing standards. This has a domino effect in the sport, where narrowness, rough, length and consumerism trump the values that built golf. Golfers are paying a lot more than they should, both financially and spiritually, to make up for years and years of steady deregulation that are now on a fast track due to an incompetent Executive Committee and a Director rubber stamping their madness.

There's a long list of deregulated industries confirming that some things just can't be turned over to corporations. I believe golf is one of those things that deserves better, and also want to see a healthy golf industry because there are so many great people who have devoted their lives to the sport, lives that will be affected by this deregulation over the next twenty years.

I expect to be called a liar and a jerk and a punk (growing up around Riviera and its management group subjects one to mature adults) and I'm willing to accept that because I believe history and the facts are on the side of those who believe this issue is important. Better yet, I really like the company I'm in with on this issue. People who've accomplished and done far more than I have, are very concerned. The encouragement I've received from folks in the golf world would probably shock those within the USGA, because only recently have most begun to see how far out of control things are.
Geoff

[Tim_Weiman]

AG Crockett:

The idea that introducing a competition ball in golf represents "massive government intervention" is laughable from my experience in the energy business. You have no idea!

First of all, it doesn't even involve the government. Second, it involves rule making that would apply to less than one percent of all the golf played. I can't think of many businessmen in any industry that would consider that much intrusion at all.


Shivas:

I agree with several points you make. Today's athletes are probably somewhat better than 30 years ago, but technology accounts for the lion's share of distance increase.

Your point about professional golfer's playing the same game is well taken. I would probably revise the language of my earlier comments. The pros do play the same game only they play it far better. More to the point - if this is what you meant to say - introducing a competition ball would hardly mean that the pros would then be playing a different game. It would still be the same game. Just the instruments would be slightly different - and surely available for anyone who wanted to play the EXACT game they play, that is the exact same rules and equipment.

I'm also sympathetic to your desire to use the latest equipment. That's part of why I like the competition ball concept more than an overall rollback. Just leave guys like you alone. If you like 185 yard seven irons, great. Enjoy them to your heart's content.

As for your recommendation that one can still play blades. Of course. I still do. My late 1980's experiment with the game improvement stuff did nothing but dull my senses, make me a worse golfer for at least seven or eight years and took away the joy of hitting a well struck blade. Fortunately, I finally had the sense to give up that nonsense - those marketing guys really got me -and go back to the old days. I have no plans to return, though I do admit to having adopted titanium for my driver.

Pro v1s? They are okay. But, I'm getting older and prefer the Maxfli Noodle. They are far softer, feel better on the blades and seem much nicer around the greens. Truthfully, they are not exactly bad in the distance department either. And last I looked they were less than half the price of the Pro V1.

Finally, in regard to playing short courses, I thought I made clear my passion for Dooks - all 6,000 yards of it. I've yet to find a 7,000 yard course that provides as much joy to play. In short, you NEED to play a Dooks to get over this fetish for absolute length. You need to have that kind of joy to understand how making the playing field bigger and bigger really doesn't make the game more enjoyable.

Too many commercial interests want to obscure that point. They seem to want a capitalist system in which the consumers don't think!

Maybe guys like you and I can highlight this point.......even if the money grubbers - wasn't that a Mackenzie term? - don't like it.

[Kevin_Reilly]

Shivas, I can play whatever kind of clubs and balls I want, but that's missing the GCA angle to all this.  My club is evaluating the potential to add length to a few (or several, TBD) holes on the course.  All in response to the distance gains among better players.  So this unbridled quest for distance will affect me whether I play with a GBB II or a plain old Big Bertha Warbird.  I think you know that, but the point was missing from your post.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Margaret C,

I sit on several Boards in the same state as the USGA, including non-profit organizations, and I can assure you that D&O is a real concern to Board members, just as Medical Malpractice Insurance is a MAJOR concern to the physicians in this State.

This isn't the casual issue that you would have us believe, and the costs aren't minimal, and WILL increase, IF the coverage remains available.

Try obtaining liability insurance for your dog, after he's bitten the mailman once  

Enron and other incidents have had and will continue to have their impact on the market place with respect to the availability and cost of D&O

The courts may decide that what you think is "acting in good faith" isn't, and the cost of that interpretation could be devastating.

I thought that the World Trade Center suffered two attacks, two seperate terrorist incidents, two planes at two different times.  But, the courts didn't see it that way, did they ?

Once a case goes to trial, who can guarantee the outcome ?

Other Organizations attempt to buffer D&O liability by offering the Organization as a shield, absorbing liability and costs, before the individual is targeted, but if the Organization has no net worth, guess who's next.

As Mike Tyson said:
"Everybody's got a game plan,
until they get hit !

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Robert Walker,
So are we to assume that with the tone of your last post, that your finally realizing how wrong you were in regards to equipment advances, compared to super human strength?

As someone that took a lot of pictues for Golf Journal, Don't you get the least bit sadden that it too doesn't exist anymore?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy Naccarato, Geoff, et. al.,

When some people were complaining to David Suskind, a producer and force in television, about the cancellation of some well regarded television programs, his response was that there were no bad programs, only bad audiences.

The inference was that the producers and networks gave the
"audience" what they wanted.  If a program was cancelled, it was because the "audience" didn't tune in to it.

My question is, was this the case with the Golf Journal ?

Was its audience limited, and was that one of the reasons for its demise ?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()