The Evil Empire: The USGA has done NOTHING good for golf in my lifetime.

[Sean_A]

Its pretty damn easy to ignore the blue blazer crowd....yes?  I mean, most golfers do.  Yes, we have the distance anxiety crowd that is largely a waste of time as they bash away with all the equipment they supposedly despise.  Yes we have the rules anxiety crowd (thats me!) who will never have a hope in hell of seeing true change to the rules which will actually benefit and encourage folks to play by the rules...honestly...the USGA folks should be ashamed of themselves when the best that can be said is they are consistent     The sentence construction alone is diabolical...and when it takes a book the size of the bible to answer questions...well that says it all.  Still...if one is willing to accept the odd penalty for not bothering to study the rules as if life itself is at stake and if one is willing to live and let live...the rules then aren't terribly important.  Yes, the USGA sucks, but as Pietro and Sweeney pointed out...that is to be expected.  The solution is to lower expectations...not cause yourself to prematurely fall off the twig.  I mean, why the hell should we expect a bunch of blue blazers to act honourably on behalf of the game and ourselves? Pretty daft when you think about it.  The thing is, they try...and thats a shame for the volunteers.

Pietro...you are well over-reaching...Oakmont played nothing like Chambers Bay. 

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean - yes, over-reach is my middle name; and yet doesn't it seem that if you can shoot 282 for the tournament, you would likely win every single US Open that MD will ever "set up" no matter how many different courses it is played at? What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all? MD should just go out and design a course himself and make it just the way he wants it and then play the next 20 Opens right there. Of course, then he'd probably *still* tweak it!

[Ronald Montesano]

Merion-sh!tton of rain that rendered the course nearly unplayable. Justin Rose wins, Phil Mickelson second.
Pinehurst-no rain, fantastic opportunity to play aerial and ground shots, Martin Kaymer wins, Erik Compton/Rickie Fowler second
Chambers Bay-absolutely faster and firmer than Pinehurst, which was faster and firmer than most other Open courses, no rain, Jordan Spieth first, Dustin Johnson second
Oakmont-Rain on day one, more rough than Pinehurst and Chambers Bay, but way less (and wider fairways) than Merion, Dustin Johnson first, Jim Furyk/Scott Piercy/Shane Lowry second.


I don't get how they played the same.

[Joe Hancock]

Merion-sh!tton of rain that rendered the course nearly unplayable. Justin Rose wins, Phil Mickelson second.
Pinehurst-no rain, fantastic opportunity to play aerial and ground shots, Martin Kaymer wins, Erik Compton/Rickie Fowler second
Chambers Bay-absolutely faster and firmer than Pinehurst, which was faster and firmer than most other Open courses, no rain, Jordan Spieth first, Dustin Johnson second
Oakmont-Rain on day one, more rough than Pinehurst and Chambers Bay, but way less (and wider fairways) than Merion, Dustin Johnson first, Jim Furyk/Scott Piercy/Shane Lowry second.


I don't get how they played the same.

The way they played the same is that everything, when discussed about the setup, was about Mike Davis instead of the golf course.

[Steve Lang]

   Jeff Lewis,


Hey, the USGA did bring you Uncle Snoopy and Woodstock teaching the rules of golf!

[John Mayhugh]

It is not surprising that a game played over dozens of acres of irregular ground, replete with obstacles would lead to greater complexity than games played within controlled  and often identical playing fields.

I had largely avoided the USGA posts, but am so glad that I read yours, Shelly.  The point above is seemingly obvious, but I've never seen it put that clearly. 

Your entire post represents the type of reasoned argument we need more of.  Thanks for taking the time to share it.

[John Kavanaugh]

Every great leader is a bit corrupt, a tad incompetent and evil to the core. Otherwise they are just a Goddamn martyr. We are in good hands.

[John Connolly]

Every great leader is a bit corrupt, a tad incompetent and evil to the core. Otherwise they are just a Goddamn martyr. We are in good hands.

That's one helluva post.

[Philip Caccamise]

I would endorse any set of rules that an assistant PGA pro could enforce without dispute.

Here you go:

Play honors and furthest away - no exceptions.

Play match play only.  Go somewhere else for stroke play. 

First guy to touch his ball (except to pull it out of the hole) or has to reach in the bag for a new one loses the hole. 

At that point, no rules. Hole is over.  Do whatever you want until the next hole. 

Lather, rinse, repeat.

I'm all for simplifying the rules in the name of making the game more approachable and fun, but this swings too far the other way.

1) Most players prefer stroke play over match play. In addition, it's virtually impossible to conduct a tournament strictly on match play.
2) Bring back the stymie on the green? How about no. If you can't touch your ball on the green, putting comes down to the luck of having mud on your ball or not.
3) Given that stroke play must be played at least by most players, how do you resolve hazards? Out of bounds?

[Doug Siebert]

...and today is my 53rd birthday....so I guess they have some more time to get something right.

They lost control of the ball. And our beloved architecture suffers as a result.  They simply needed to make sure the distance standard was calculated based on appropriate clubhead speed.  That was not hard to do. But they were either outsmarted by Titleist or co-opted.   And that failure is a complete and utter disaster.

Who cares where you hold your putter?  For years and years, no player with a long putter won a major.  If it were such an advantage, the majority of players would have used the "illegal" method.  It wasn't.

The rules are insanely complicated.  Yesterday is just the latest example.  The game is HARD.  It really is not fun for a lot of people who try it.   Let's make it more accessible, not less.

Handicaps and pace of play. WHY WHY WHY does the USGA make the average golfer think they need to finish golf holes to post a score?  All of this bland messaging about picking up the pace.  THE problem is that most people think they can't post a valid score on a hole unless they finish. Almost everybody who plays golf plays match play.   So, let's make sure they pick their ball up when their partner has control of the hole.  The USGA is blind to this problem which they created by having golfers post every score they shoot. Why are they not working to solve it? 

What are our games biggest problems?

When I was a kid, I played the same game I watched on TV.  I hit a 7 iron the same distance as the pros.   Now I hit a 7 iron as far as they hit a wedge. The Ball is out of control.

It takes too long. GET PEOPLE TO PICK UP. 

The courses keep having to change and adapt and spend money for the tiniest percentage of players who are overwhelming the courses with ball technology.  The Ball is out of control.

Golf may die because it is too hard, costs too much and takes too long.  And though we walk in the players footsteps, we cannot replicate their feats. 

I like it.  I hope that the next generation takes over the USGA and turns it into the United States Golf Association, instead of whatever it has been in my experience.


 
a

That was AWESOME!  Exactly how I feel about the USGA.  They suck the soul out of the game.  Please come to Chicago. I wanna play golf with YOU!!

Let me know when he comes, I'll be in the third in that foursome!

I agree with everything except complaining about not hitting as far as they do these days. I turned 50 last month, and I'm under no illusions that I should be able to match what the pros do today distance-wise, even though I easily could do so when I was in my 20s. Yeah, it sucks getting older and having nagging injuries that stop you from swinging the way you used to be able to, but that would be the case with the typical 50 year old body even if a 7 iron was still only good for 180 yards like back in the day.

It was instructive to see the swing speed vs carry distance graphics during the US Open. Apparently a swing speed of only 120 mph is good for a 325 yard carry if you have your launch angle and spin rate properly optimized. I was measured at 117 mph with a 130g 43" dynamic gold steel shaft on a persimmon driver as a college freshmen, and 123 mph with a 44" graphite shaft a decade later. My only wish seeing what guys like DJ can do with the ball today would be to have my 20 something self and swing back for one round with modern equipment, just to see how ridiculous that would be. I wouldn't want to play like that day to day though, I don't have the control those guys do today and was even more wild back then so I'd probably kill someone eventually if I could carry it 350! Would you really want to have to wait for the green to clear on a 375 yard par 4?

[Sean_A]

Merion-sh!tton of rain that rendered the course nearly unplayable. Justin Rose wins, Phil Mickelson second.
Pinehurst-no rain, fantastic opportunity to play aerial and ground shots, Martin Kaymer wins, Erik Compton/Rickie Fowler second
Chambers Bay-absolutely faster and firmer than Pinehurst, which was faster and firmer than most other Open courses, no rain, Jordan Spieth first, Dustin Johnson second
Oakmont-Rain on day one, more rough than Pinehurst and Chambers Bay, but way less (and wider fairways) than Merion, Dustin Johnson first, Jim Furyk/Scott Piercy/Shane Lowry second.


I don't get how they played the same.

The way they played the same is that everything, when discussed about the setup, was about Mike Davis instead of the golf course.

Joe & Pietro


Maybe thats the case living in N America.  Living in the UK I am not bombarded with US Open media and I don't seek it out.  In any case, the USGA has long determined the set-up (my entire lifetime..when was the last time the club set-up a US Open course?) of US Opens or at the very least prepared courses in advance, MD is merely one chap in a long line of busy bodies.  The difference with MD so far as I am concerned is that each course has played quite differently and roughly in tune with its architectural origins.  A hole or two gets it's tee exapanded to create more variety in the championship.  Even if that concept isn't in tune with the courses...that is a problem with the courses, there is nothing wrong with the concept because so far as I am concerned variety is the number 1 element of design.  Once MD's reign is over we can get back to a long string of 460 yard par 4s down bowling alleys, just like the good ole days of the 80s & 90s...remember those days?  Good stuff.


Ciao

[Mike Sweeney]

I would endorse any set of rules that an assistant PGA pro could enforce without dispute.

Here you go:

Play honors and furthest away - no exceptions.

Play match play only.  Go somewhere else for stroke play. 

First guy to touch his ball (except to pull it out of the hole) or has to reach in the bag for a new one loses the hole. 

At that point, no rules. Hole is over.  Do whatever you want until the next hole. 

Lather, rinse, repeat.

I'm all for simplifying the rules in the name of making the game more approachable and fun, but this swings too far the other way.

1) Most players prefer stroke play over match play. In addition, it's virtually impossible to conduct a tournament strictly on match play.
2) Bring back the stymie on the green? How about no. If you can't touch your ball on the green, putting comes down to the luck of having mud on your ball or not.
3) Given that stroke play must be played at least by most players, how do you resolve hazards? Out of bounds?

I think that John and Dave's premise is on everyday play. Once again, a bifurcation of the rules is needed. To answer your questions, I propose:


1) Not for stroke play, just friendly matches that need no referees or assistant pros. You can still keep a score within the match. If you break a USGA rule along the way, don't post it.


2) Dave is hung up on marking the ball, I would agree to allow marking the ball on the green.


3) Keep Dave's rules. Hit OB on the tee, hit another no penalty. When you reach double, pick up. If both pick up, the hole is halved.


The point is, simplify the game.

[Phil McDade]

Mike Davis (not to be confused with Ray and Dave Davies) does not work/wreak Open setups. If anything, he makes them more playable. If we weren't paying attention during the 1970s and 1980s, US Opens were played through treed alleyways, amid deep-rough sidewalks, with fairway bunkers removed from the fairways, so deep in the rough were they situated.


Davis brought flexibility of setup, driveable par fours, diverse teeing grounds and much more to this national championship. Contrast US Opens at Pinehurst in 1999 and 2005, vs. 2014. Or Oakmont in 1994, 2007 and 2016. Mike Davis does not select the sites in dictatorial fashion. Concerning private clubs, they certainly tell the USGA that certain elements of their course culture must be preserved. In the case of Olympic Club, I suspect that the intrusion of trees and thick rough is something that members want. As for Oakmont, certainly those practitioners of golfing S&M absolutely adore uber-fast greens. In order to be true to its self, Chambers Bay had to play the way it did in 2015.


I can't speak to how Mike Davis manages other aspects of the USGA, but I can voice my support for how he prepares courses for US Opens. I don't know how tied his hands are, but whatever the extent, he does a fine job.

Ronald:


Don't you think it a bit odd that the head of the USGA spends a considerable amount of time obsessing about driveable par 4s and graduated rough? Doesn't a good executive have, you know, staff that can do that sort of thing?


Davis can't see the forest for the trees. Channeling Claude Rains, I'm shocked, shocked, to find mistakes being made in the final round of the one tournament the USGA uses to promote itself every year (Davis admitted Monday to the "bogey" tournament officials made in how they handled the Johnson thing). Doesn't a good executive -- the one time a year when the eyes of the golfing word are upon it -- at least go into that week with a view of: "Let's not screw this up." Yet under Davis' leadership, the USGA figures out a way to screw things up.


Others, like Shel and Mike Sweeney, have far more experience than I in dealing with the USGA; their comments have helped me understand the challenges of this larger discussion. But I think I can recognize good leadership from bad; Davis really has not led the USGA very well during his tenure as executive director. That he is a product, as David Tepper suggests, of an in-bred system is not surprising. That his minions really screwed up a decision in the biggest week of the year for the USGA is not surprising, either.

[jeffwarne]

"Look at me'


....doesn't always work out in a positive fashion

[Jim_Kennedy]

In 1970 the number of people playing golf was pegged at 11.2m, in 1992 that number reached 28m. It may have waned post 2007, but there are still 20m+ people playing.
 Today it's basically the same set of rules, you know, the ones being lambasted here, that were in place while golf experienced this considerable growth.


 

[Mike Sweeney]

Others, like Shel and Mike Sweeney, have far more experience than I in dealing with the USGA; their comments have helped me understand the challenges of this larger discussion.

Phil,


Just to be clear, Shelly is legit.


I am just good at yelling into the wind That said, I have no agenda in golf, not a rater or any official position. Other than caddying, I have never made money from golf. At 10 AM, my day starts on conference calls for my real life, which coincidentally involves shifting from a centralized to de-centralized system - http://www.carousel51.com/carousel-farms/


Golf is just a hobby/passion for me and I have played courses from Walnut Lane (Philly) to Cypress Point with the same enthusiasm for the game. I will let Peter's words above express my sadness with the decisions being made by one BIG (for golf) centralized authority.


Time to break up the USGA into smaller pieces or support organizations that doing a better job at executing pieces of the USGA's agenda.

[Mike Sweeney]

In 1970 the number of people playing golf was pegged at 11.2m, in 1992 that number reached 28m. It may have waned post 2007, but there are still 20m+ people playing.
 The same set of rules, you know, the ones being lambasted here, are the same set of rules that were in place while golf experienced this considerable growth.

Jim,


How many people on a typical day, no tournaments, actually play by the rules of golf? I would guess less than 20%. Here is an article where the PGA states:


http://www.pga.com/news/golf-buzz/unwritten-rules-golf


One of the greatest challenges to more people playing golf is the intimidation of learning the rules. No, I'm not talking about the ample rulebook provided by the USGA, because quite honestly, you probably break a number of them everytime you go out. No, it's the rules that we all are expected to play by, and that are not really found anywhere - the Unwritten Rules of Golf.

[Peter Pallotta]

Along with my original response to Shel's posts, I then side-tracked the thread by raising the issue of course set-ups. But since the barn door is now open, here is a very succinct and lucid opinion on that matter by Dottie Pepper. She says it all much better than I did:

“If the USGA is trying to identify a national champion and it chooses these venues on their own merits to be the arena for the examination, why the need to nip, tuck, alter and mask these courses? If the new mantra is being ‘innovative,’ why not be truly innovative and stop messing with these courses? Move the tees back to the tips, let mother nature dictate the condition of play (we don't play golf in a dome after all) and let a four-day slugfest produce a winner.”

[Joe Sponcia]

The USGA is the Common Enemy hereabouts and much of it is justified. The pompous, tone-deaf delivery of their penalty pondering as seen on live television was absolutely devastating.

But I just don't fully understand how technology has ruined the game as some seem to argue. If you don't want to watch Dustin hit a 378 yard drive, turn the channel. Most people want to watch that.

The technological advances are the product of ingenuity and capitalism. And they help virtually every amateur golfer. I hit the ball farther at 62 than I did at 42 and it ain't because of any training regimen.

So I won't whine about the USGA's unwillingness to harness technology. I think that stance has helped the game, helped the golf economy and helped keep the game current. Dialing back technology through rules will lead to lawsuits that the USGA would lose.

Bifurcation is an issue worth discussing, but dialing back the ball and stifling club improvement would be bad for the game.

But Terry, length only matters on a relative basis.  If you and every other Tom Dick and Harry all hit it farther, none of you do!   All you're doing is walking a 7200 yard course instead of a 6400 yard course.  That takes more time, costs more to maintain and of course, costs more to acquire (in the case of new courses).  These are non-relative because it's not a competition to see who can pay more (as opposed to hit it farther).  We all just lose. 

And on top of that, the "gains" (which aren't even really gains if everybody gets them) aren't even equal!  The really long guys get more "gain" than you.  So, actually, you lose, on a relative basis and you lose on any non-relative metrics too!!

I know you know all this.

Eagle David!


Can anyone imagine many courses losing 2-3 tee boxes with a 1980's distance ball in 2020 (don't read out of round, inconsistent balls)?  Me neither.  People would quit in droves - please.  They would play much faster.  We could devote more labor to bunkers instead of mowing the 40-60 yard walk backward tees.  In a year or two, everyone would get over the "I can't carry my driver 280 now" or my favorite "I hit it farther than when I was in my twenties". 


As David stated, hitting it further while playing 400 extra yards just means you can't see your balls land on drives and you'll be looking in the rough longer while walking further. 


I believe the USGA has done a great many things, but have dropped the ball on the ball.  No one is willing to say enough.


It is hard to cross over and compare other sports, but I believe tennis would be infinitely more interesting if they went BACK to Bjorg sized and composition racquets.  I also believe football would be better with leather helmets and pads.  Steroidal athletes now run with reckless abandon into one another because their heads are wrapped in kevlar. 


No one is trying to take away your shovels or suggesting we go back to persimmon. 

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike,

"One of the greatest challenges to more people playing golf is the intimidation of learning the rules."

It's a meaningless quote, how do you account for golf's growth?

[BCowan]

Eagle David!


Can anyone imagine many courses losing 2-3 tee boxes with a 1980's distance ball in 2020 (don't read out of round, inconsistent balls)?  Me neither.  People would quit in droves - please.  They would play much faster.  We could devote more labor to bunkers instead of mowing the 40-60 yard walk backward tees.  In a year or two, everyone would get over the "I can't carry my driver 280 now" or my favorite "I hit it farther than when I was in my twenties". 


As David stated, hitting it further while playing 400 extra yards just means you can't see your balls land on drives and you'll be looking in the rough longer while walking further. 


I believe the USGA has done a great many things, but have dropped the ball on the ball.  No one is willing to say enough.


It is hard to cross over and compare other sports, but I believe tennis would be infinitely more interesting if they went BACK to Bjorg sized and composition racquets.  I also believe football would be better with leather helmets and pads.  Steroidal athletes now run with reckless abandon into one another because their heads are wrapped in kevlar. 


No one is trying to take away your shovels or suggesting we go back to persimmon.

Joe,

Fast play has nothing to do with how long a course is.  I play a 7,000 yard course in 3:20 so that blows that out of the water.  I don't plum bob, I don't putz around, I hit when ready, and I don't spend hours reading putts on the greens.  The only ones getting enormous gains are the top 3% of players.  Still the hardcore golfer likes hitting it 15 yards farther when he connects.  It is rather simple bifurcation is the answer.  It is what baseball players do.  Many think that steroids saved baseball.  People like to see homers.  I'm a purist and stopped watching baseball due to how liberally they handled it.  Bifurcation is the answer in Pro Tennis and Golf.  I find it so annoying the folks on here that want to mandate how far a course players play.  Nothing over 6,300 yards unless Czar approves 

This overstating how much maint goes into a small tip tee box is outrageous.  Many courses don't maint tip tee box to the same level as the members tees depending on length of tips.  Looking in the rough longer is due to double and triple row irrigation. 

More labor to bunkers?  Please they are way over maintained for HAZARDS.  All high clubs are spending fortunes on crushed rock sand, which I find very troubling.  How about focusing on spending money on tree removal and taking care of the greens and fairways.

It would be great if the Majors had Firm greens and stopped focusing on GREEN SPEEDS!  All great change happens from the ground up.  Mike Young's post was a home run.  Unlike most of us, Mike actually owns a golf course and has real world experience.   Private Golf Clubs can experiment with using a one ball that goes 20% shorter for their championship flight in their club championship.   

[John Kavanaugh]

What's next, 8 foot goals for 50 and over basketball leagues? It's all about perception, we want to play a sport with big boy clubs on a big boy venue and golf is all we got. I got your bifurcation right here and now we can choose any bathroom to find out. Can we please stop pretending to be men in at least one aspect of our lives?

[BCowan]

 

Jkava,

   When are we going to build that 9,000 yard course? 

[John Sabino]

Not sure I agree that the USGA is doomed. Their funding model is based on selling television rights and given the amount of money Fox paid to televise events the USGA can ride out the next 50 years or so with the endowment they built up.


I agree with the idea of getting people to pick up their ball is a good thing and the USGA needs to do more to rethink how to do that.


The rules are for sure too complicated. They should blow up the rule book and rules of golf and start again and try to get it to half a dozen common sense rules. The basic idea of the rule that they unfairly penalized DJ on is this, "did the player cheat or do something that would give them an unfair advantage over the field". Clearly the answer is no. The USGA is missing the forest through the trees. I'm sure they are technically accurate in their ruling done by a committee, but this isn't a trial and you shouldn't need to consult lawyers and get opinions and have to look up precedent. It's common sense. DJ did nothing to advantage himself.


The biggest issue of perspective that the USGA seems to be missing right now is that the game is one based on integrity. The DJ ruling clearly shows that. What happened to golfers calling penalties on themselves? Their new rule that you can't post a score if you play by yourself is also absurd. It goes to the same issue: they don't trust me to post an honest score by myself. This undercuts the game.


I wouldn't go so far as to say that the USGA has done nothing for the good of the game. They do a very good job running the Amateur and the Walker Cup, and their preservation of the game's history and their archives and library are quite good.


Simplification is needed in the rules and greens speeds for US Opens need to be slowed so that balls don't move on their own. It would still present a stern test.

[John Kavanaugh]

How are we going to grow the game if you don't allow players to test themselves against themselves. Let a guy shoot 120 so he feels the joy of shooting 110 and then becomes hooked when he breaks 100. No one should ever feel obligated to quit a hole because a highly skilled golfer is being inconvenienced. I still recall that first hole I played as an eight year old and it ended with the ball in the hole. That was 1968.