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

[Mike_Young]

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.

Jim,
I agree.  But 19,900,000 of the golfers don't play by them on a daily basis...they just play...

[Mike Sweeney]

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

Real estate helped drive its rise. Between 1992 and 2002, at least 60% of new golf courses were tied to property developments, according to Richard J. Moss, author of “The Kingdom of Golf in America”, a rich history of the sport. Golf courses increased the value of surrounding homes, and developers built long, complicated courses with the hope of attracting tournaments and attention.

http://www.economist.com/news/christmas-specials/21636688-though-thriving-parts-asia-golf-struggling-america-and-much-europe
________________________________

I started playing in 1975 (yikes) and since my Dad did not play. I was basically on Munis and then with my high school golf team, some fancy private clubs.

The only privately owned public courses that I played in that era were down at the Jersey Shore, and there were two, Avalon GC and the Jersey Devil GC. Now there are probably 40+ down at the Jersey Shore, and some of the old private clubs at the Shore like Atlantic City are now public:

http://www.atlanticcitygolf.com/courses/


On the USGA site, I see only one resort/public golfer on the Executive Committee:


http://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/about/executive-committee.html


http://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/about/sheila-c-johnson-21474854238.html


Mike Young has been saying this for years. The USGA is focused on private clubs. I give David Fay credit for bringing  the US Open to Bethpage and starting that US Open trend to public golf. However, looking at the Executive Committee today, it makes me believe that they have a long way to go in terms of representing golf. Why not put a member from Nassau Players Club on the Executive Committee? Those guys love golf and Bethpage:


http://nassauplayers.org


Jaka,


I am down to two golf clubs these days - Yale and Enniscrone GC (Ireland). I consider Yale a European Club in style and execution, so I am very happy with the current mix. I will be interested in hearing your updated views after your Scotland trip, and I strongly suggest that you play at least one or two rounds with locals.

[Mike_Young]

MS,
I think it is critical that people realize the USGA does not own golf.  They took in public golf courses during the 60's if I am correct and have never given them their due and never will.  The only reason most of us need them is because they control the handicap system.  If we choose to play in one of their 10 tournaments then we should abide by their rules and regulations.  Otherwise it is time for the PGA to take this opening and clean up the overall scene.  They need to remember these same guys did not want them in the clubhouse a while back.  Everything they do is to make the USGA look better.  Even the latest ASGCA/USGA "help a course" program is geared to make sure the courses they chose can be a marketing plus.  And all of those type of things are "scratch my back " type things.  Makes you think maybe an ASGCA member was on the USGA board or something.  And so, they don't affect me 99.999 percent of the time but I despise the air they bring with them.  It's not much different than when they were just the five extremely elite clubs never knowing they would have to accept the masses and like it....I think it has just begun...

[Carl Rogers]

When the USGA's advertising states " for the good of the game" etc etc, then they are taking, if not demanding ownership of the game and all that goes with it.  The casual golfer believes this.

[David Kelly]

The behavior of the USGA reminds me of Robert Conquest's third law of politics: "The behavior of any bureaucratic organization can best be understood by assuming that it is controlled by a secret cabal of its enemies."

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike S,


It doesn't matter what accounts for golf's growth, the fact is it grew quite large even though the rules and decisions book is hundreds and hundreds of pages long. I believe it was just over 700 pages in 1999, boom time.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but between 2000 and 2021 the US Open will have been played on 11 publicly accessible courses, expensive publicly accessible courses, but public/resort nonetheless.


I fully agree that the USGA needs to do a better job of embracing every club,and adding some committee members from the daily fee side would be a step in the right direction.  I don't agree that the USGA needs to be replaced, and to Mike Y I say that I don't believe that the PGA Tour could, or would, "clean up the scene". They have never taken any steps to limit the ball or the equipment in the past.

[Mike_Young]

Jim,
We agree re the PGA Tour.  I said the PGA..they are on the scene of American golf everyday or at least see the game as a career and not as a volunteer.  JMO

[A.G._Crockett]

MS,
I think it is critical that people realize the USGA does not own golf.  They took in public golf courses during the 60's if I am correct and have never given them their due and never will.  The only reason most of us need them is because they control the handicap system.  If we choose to play in one of their 10 tournaments then we should abide by their rules and regulations.  Otherwise it is time for the PGA to take this opening and clean up the overall scene.  They need to remember these same guys did not want them in the clubhouse a while back.  Everything they do is to make the USGA look better.  Even the latest ASGCA/USGA "help a course" program is geared to make sure the courses they chose can be a marketing plus.  And all of those type of things are "scratch my back " type things.  Makes you think maybe an ASGCA member was on the USGA board or something.  And so, they don't affect me 99.999 percent of the time but I despise the air they bring with them.  It's not much different than when they were just the five extremely elite clubs never knowing they would have to accept the masses and like it....I think it has just begun...

1+, Mike.  A bunch of guys who were born on third base and believe they hit a triple.

I quit joining three years ago when it finally dawned on me that they weren't doing one swinging thing for me except sending me a cheap hat and a catalog for overpriced golf shirts.  So I pay my handicap fee each year and use them, rather than letting them use me.

[Mike Sweeney]

Jim,
We agree re the PGA Tour.  I said the PGA..they are on the scene of American golf everyday or at least see the game as a career and not as a volunteer.  JMO

Jim,


I also never said to replace the USGA. I said break it up into smaller pieces and/or support groups that could penetrate its weak points.


In the modern world, having a conversation and finding a solution between two extremes is tough to find. But I am an optimist, and I think I will break 80 on Friday at Yale!

[Doug Siebert]

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.

It has something to do with it. The biggest problem with all the slow play discussions is people who try to point to a single factor and say "that's why we are slow now". It is a combination of many factors that all contribute a few minutes here and a few minutes there, and claiming that longer courses don't slow down play at all is silly. I play a nearly 7300 yard course in 2:30 if I'm by myself and am able to quickly play through anyone in front of me, but that doesn't mean I couldn't play it in say 2:20 if I moved up to the 6600 yard tees. Less walking, a couple fewer shots, it adds up.

Think of it this way, I probably walk about 3 mph, which means it takes me 20 minutes to walk a mile. If I play a course that's a third of a mile shorter, that's a minimum of 6 minutes and 40 seconds less time to cover that ground - and that doesn't include places where I have to cover that ground twice to walk backwards to the back tee.

The bigger problem with longer courses though is that they cost more to build and cost more to maintain. More acres of land increases cost, that's as simple as "covering more round takes more time".

[BCowan]

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.

It has something to do with it. The biggest problem with all the slow play discussions is people who try to point to a single factor and say "that's why we are slow now". It is a combination of many factors that all contribute a few minutes here and a few minutes there, and claiming that longer courses don't slow down play at all is silly. I play a nearly 7300 yard course in 2:30 if I'm by myself and am able to quickly play through anyone in front of me, but that doesn't mean I couldn't play it in say 2:20 if I moved up to the 6600 yard tees. Less walking, a couple fewer shots, it adds up.

Think of it this way, I probably walk about 3 mph, which means it takes me 20 minutes to walk a mile. If I play a course that's a third of a mile shorter, that's a minimum of 6 minutes and 40 seconds less time to cover that ground - and that doesn't include places where I have to cover that ground twice to walk backwards to the back tee.

The bigger problem with longer courses though is that they cost more to build and cost more to maintain. More acres of land increases cost, that's as simple as "covering more round takes more time".

I play said 7,000 yard course in a 4 some in 320-330.  And you are overestimating that every or most tips tees are walking backwards.  The player playing the tips usually takes less shots to make up for those few walks.  We have bigger courses land wise because fear of lawyers and arrant shots hitting people.  So u haven't identified problem correctly.  Every holes gotta be signature hole, can't see another 4 some playing.  More acre land track can have less turf to maint with more native.  I actually like tight routings that are walkable, but I'm countering what I think is your group think ideology.

I've played many 5800-6200 yard courses in 5 hrs in my day.  The longer walks argument is fuey.  I listed many reasons for pace of play issues in prior post. Length isn't the reason, but the scapegoat. We have a bunch of selfish golfers. 

[Sean_A]

Ben

It pleases me that you play at breakneck speed, but your brain must be malfunctioning    It stands to reason that the same players on a design which is 7000 yards compared to a similar design of 6000 yards will take longer to walk.  That is one reason for slower play today than in previous generations.  There are other reasons of course.  For instance,

100 years ago 4somes and 2ball play were more prevelant than 4ball play 

Tees were closer to greens

Courses are generally are less forgiving these days and modern equipment makes it easier to find trouble even though it shouldn't if people played smartly...so in essence, user error

Poor tee time managment

Design not suitable for getting golfers around quicker

Stupid golfers choosing wrong times, courses and tees for their ability...also not properly understanding etiquette...this ties in with poor management

There is a divide between public golf and private golf in that the culture is often different on publics making it ok to play slower and it has been publics which are the mainstay of modern golf development

I also think there has been a general culture of slower play developing since Jack's early days, the rise of televised golf and the rise of money to be won/earned...watch the pros of today compared to pre-tv...not even close in terms of role models for speed of play

Much of the above can be explained by a large percentage of modern design not being best for the game and how it should be played, but what is best to make money or sell something uconnected with golf. 

Ciao

[Colin Macqueen]

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.

JK,
Ne'er a truer word was spoken!  My first ever game of golf as a 12 year old, on the Burnside course cheek by jowl with Carnoustie, resulted in a ball on the railway track off the first drive, scores on various holes reckoned in multiples of ten, a hunt for balls due to lack of ammo as the game progressed to the last couple of holes and the most exhilarating feeling as the total was tallied at the end of the round (close to the 200 mark from memory!). But the ball was never picked up and the hole unfinished. We all have to start somewhere!


Cheers Colin

[jeffwarne]

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.

JK,
Ne'er a truer word was spoken!  My first ever game of golf as a 12 year old, on the Burnside course cheek by jowl with Carnoustie, resulted in a ball on the railway track off the first drive, scores on various holes reckoned in multiples of ten, a hunt for balls due to lack of ammo as the game progressed to the last couple of holes and the most exhilarating feeling as the total was tallied at the end of the round (close to the 200 mark from memory!). But the ball was never picked up and the hole unfinished. We all have to start somewhere!


Cheers Colin

Though JK's tongue is generally planted firmly in cheek, in this case he makes sense. It seems many want to impose THEIR particular mode of play on others, and reading other threads seems they have the simple solution on rules to a game with an understandably complex set of rules.
To each his own as long as you keep up, allow othes through and/or play at appropriate times

[Ian Andrew]

let's see ...

Continuous funding of turf research at Universities
Comprehensive golf archives available to all
Conducting amateur championships
Conducting seminars on everything from rules to maintenance  (I attend these every year)
The "recent" push for sustainability
Written publications and articles of everything from history to course management
etc. etc.

There are aspects like the equipment that frustrate me too, but you can't say they do nothing.
`

[Thomas Dai]

To paraphrase some lines from a certain film -

"What have the Romans ever done for us?"...........apart from "sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, public health and peace.".

Atb

[Mike_Young]

let's see ...

Continuous funding of turf research at Universities
Comprehensive golf archives available to all
Conducting amateur championships
Conducting seminars on everything from rules to maintenance  (I attend these every year)
The "recent" push for sustainability
Written publications and articles of everything from history to course management
etc. etc.

There are aspects like the equipment that frustrate me too, but you can't say they do nothing.
`

Ian,
With myself being the contrarian, you and I would be the ideal pair to debate the above.  I agree they do those things but they do them with much more hype than substance.  They could be done so much more efficiently with other groups.  I concede the running of the tournaments but and handicaps but I suspect they just blew a lot of that this week.  I would expect Golf channel/GolfNow to be doing handicaps sooner than expected.  I just see it overall as an organization that has passed itself by...

[Martin Lehmann]

To parafrase Neil Young: my, my, hey, hey, golf is here to stay; hey, hey, my, my, golf can never die

[Kalen Braley]

My take on slow play revolves more around the public/muni perspective of where I play most of my golf.

But the most common theme that comes up has nothing to do with course length...

..its all about the attitude/premise of other golfers that claim they:

1)  Paid to be out there.
2)  Will take their damn sweet time
3)  Why rush it?  Take it easy, drink some beer, be social and have a good time.

[A.G._Crockett]

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.

It has something to do with it. The biggest problem with all the slow play discussions is people who try to point to a single factor and say "that's why we are slow now". It is a combination of many factors that all contribute a few minutes here and a few minutes there, and claiming that longer courses don't slow down play at all is silly. I play a nearly 7300 yard course in 2:30 if I'm by myself and am able to quickly play through anyone in front of me, but that doesn't mean I couldn't play it in say 2:20 if I moved up to the 6600 yard tees. Less walking, a couple fewer shots, it adds up.

Think of it this way, I probably walk about 3 mph, which means it takes me 20 minutes to walk a mile. If I play a course that's a third of a mile shorter, that's a minimum of 6 minutes and 40 seconds less time to cover that ground - and that doesn't include places where I have to cover that ground twice to walk backwards to the back tee.

The bigger problem with longer courses though is that they cost more to build and cost more to maintain. More acres of land increases cost, that's as simple as "covering more round takes more time".

I play said 7,000 yard course in a 4 some in 320-330.  And you are overestimating that every or most tips tees are walking backwards.  The player playing the tips usually takes less shots to make up for those few walks.  We have bigger courses land wise because fear of lawyers and arrant shots hitting people.  So u haven't identified problem correctly.  Every holes gotta be signature hole, can't see another 4 some playing.  More acre land track can have less turf to maint with more native.  I actually like tight routings that are walkable, but I'm countering what I think is your group think ideology.

I've played many 5800-6200 yard courses in 5 hrs in my day.  The longer walks argument is fuey.  I listed many reasons for pace of play issues in prior post. Length isn't the reason, but the scapegoat. We have a bunch of selfish golfers.

Ben,
I know that you understand that going from the instance to the generalization is logical fallacy of the first magnitude, right?

That YOU can play a 7000 yd. course quickly is great.  But I don't think you would argue that you can PLAY 7000 yds as quickly as you can walk them, right?  7000 yds is right at 4 miles; you and your friends could easily walk that in under 2 hours, yet you say it takes you nearly DOUBLE that time to play golf on those 7000 yds! 

So there MUST be a connection between playing golf and taking more time, and it stands to reason that the more golf you play, the longer it takes, right?  And I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you and your group are FAR more accomplished golfers than most, and far more studious about how to play quickly as well.

Doug's right, of course; there is no one reason for slow play.  But thinking that longer courses or players playing a set of tees that is too much for them doesn't matter or contribute to slow play can't possibly be correct.

[SL_Solow]

Mike;  Regarding the handicaps issue, outside groups have offered handicap services for years.  Often they have offered financial inducements to local pro's to steer their courses/players to the cheaper on line services.  The problem is that there is no ability to examine the scores.  if one of the functions is to prevent sandbagging, there needs to be the ability to monitor and correct handicaps.  The USGA and affiliated organizations try to do this via peer review.  This is most effective at private clubs where committees have the ability to adjust handicaps.  it doesn't happen often but when it does....  Moreover, with the current push to adopt an international system, a group like the USGA will likely take the lead.  As to the other services being delivered by "locals",  some are capable and some are not.  Particularly in the research area, very few are qualified or interested.  As poorly as many of us feel the USGA has done on equipment, can you conceive of there being any regulation absent a central authority?  Make no mistake about it; I have had my differences with the USGA on a variety of topics.  But blanket condemnation of all they do, as exhibited in this thread, is over the top.  My first post is a better exposition of my more global view.

[Carl Rogers]

let's see ...

Continuous funding of turf research at Universities
Comprehensive golf archives available to all
Conducting amateur championships
Conducting seminars on everything from rules to maintenance  (I attend these every year)
The "recent" push for sustainability
Written publications and articles of everything from history to course management
etc. etc.

There are aspects like the equipment that frustrate me too, but you can't say they do nothing.

Mr. Andrew,  thank you for some glass is half full comments.
Is our world a better place for the USGA holding something like a Senior Women's Amateur? (I think it is.)
The problem is what you have to do in our world in order to fund those activities.

[Ian Andrew]

With myself being the contrarian, you and I would be the ideal pair to debate the above. 

I don't think that's the case.

I think they and the R&A's inaction on the ball is golf's biggest problem.
They have done lots "in my lifetime," but they have failed the game on this one issue.

At the same time I'm grateful to the support I have been given on turf related issues.
They make me a more effective architect with information they provide on their course visits.

[Mike_Young]

Mike;  Regarding the handicaps issue, outside groups have offered handicap services for years.  Often they have offered financial inducements to local pro's to steer their courses/players to the cheaper on line services.  The problem is that there is no ability to examine the scores.  if one of the functions is to prevent sandbagging, there needs to be the ability to monitor and correct handicaps.  The USGA and affiliated organizations try to do this via peer review.  This is most effective at private clubs where committees have the ability to adjust handicaps.  it doesn't happen often but when it does....  Moreover, with the current push to adopt an international system, a group like the USGA will likely take the lead.  As to the other services being delivered by "locals",  some are capable and some are not.  Particularly in the research area, very few are qualified or interested.  As poorly as many of us feel the USGA has done on equipment, can you conceive of there being any regulation absent a central authority?  Make no mistake about it; I have had my differences with the USGA on a variety of topics.  But blanket condemnation of all they do, as exhibited in this thread, is over the top.  My first post is a better exposition of my more global view.

Shelly,
GolfNow is dangerous and probably much more so than the USGA.  They will do a handicap via golf channel soon...watch and then they will chip away at things whether it be pro shop sales or buying options until they control a large portion of the public golf scene and many will not even know it hit them...watch...

[MCirba]

This is a really good thread and I find myself wishing many folks weighing in here were USGA officials. 

I also agree with most of Jeff's original premise.