Working with Mike Davis on a Course

[Erik J. Barzeski]

"When the time comes, I want to do some volunteering, to stay engaged with the game. A bit of involvement in golf architecture would be fun. I’m not qualified to actually design my own course, but I’d love to team up with someone. Just to help. Just to go out and dig in the dirt. I’d love to do that."

That's Mike Davis here: http://www.golfdigest.com/story/changing-course-the-usgas-mike-davis-shifts-with-the-game-and-the-culture

I'm curious what some of the architects here think of that, how they think that would work out.

P.S. If this was already posted, please merge. I looked and didn't see anything…

[Rick Emerson]

I love so many of the things he says in this article. Lets talk about some of these things too.

“When I talk to architects, for about 40 years, hard equaled good. Now you’re definitely seeing that go in the other direction, where fun equals good. These practices of narrower fairways, higher rough, not encouraging play from the proper tees, it’s no good."

“A lot of innovations have made the game better, but there are some where you would say, ‘I’m not sure that’s really good for the game.’ Like the speed of greens. Today, people equate fast greens with good greens. But fast greens cost more to maintain. Fast greens are more susceptible to disease. Fast greens compromise some of the architectural integrity of great courses. Fast greens have absolutely caused more cases of the yips. And they’ve hurt pace of play. So there’s an innovation where we say, ‘OK, we’ve innovated with new grasses and new mowers, but has that really been innovation?’ It’s like over-seeding. It’s very expensive, and agronomically not good, and dormant Bermuda is a very good playing surface. I hope in the future we see a scenario where there is no over-seeding. Period. The notion that everything has to be perfectly maintained, it’s bad for the game, and bad for enjoyment."

"‘Keep your fairways drier, but longer.’ It’s good, because for the average player, their ball hits and gets a little bit more distance. For the good player, it actually becomes more strategic, because you have to worry about what your ball is going to do after it lands, where is it going to bounce and roll to if it’s drier. The average player can bounce balls into greens."

"‘When I look back at the USGA over the decades, my biggest regret would be what has happened with distance. It’s been the thing, probably more than any, that has been the most harmful to the game. Billions of dollars have been spent to alter golf courses—and for what? If I said in front of a thousand golfers, ‘Who would like to hit the ball shorter?’ would any hands be raised? They’d think I had lost my marbles. Nobody wants to hit the ball shorter. On the other hand, increased distance has had a profoundly negative effect on golf courses. They’ve had to expand, they’ve had to use more resources to maintain. It takes more time to play. It takes more land and construction costs for new golf courses. And in some cases, architectural integrity has been compromised. Are any of these things good?"

These kind of Statements make me glad Mike Davis is at the Helm of the USGA.

[Ryan Coles]

If you like words rather than actions, I guess.


He talks as if he's a hapless passenger on the wrong train, rather than a CEO.

[Colin Sheehan]

Here's a gem:


I sometimes wish we could just snap our fingers and say, ‘We’re going to roll the entire golf world back on distance.’ But the stark reality is that would be chaotic and would likely not be supported by the masses.

He just spent the previous paragraphs listing all the downsides to increased distance. I don't see any reason why it would be chaotic or not supported by the masses.

[jeffwarne]

I love so many of the things he says in this article. Lets talk about some of these things too.

“When I talk to architects, for about 40 years, hard equaled good. Now you’re definitely seeing that go in the other direction, where fun equals good. These practices of narrower fairways, higher rough, not encouraging play from the proper tees, it’s no good."

“A lot of innovations have made the game better, but there are some where you would say, ‘I’m not sure that’s really good for the game.’ Like the speed of greens. Today, people equate fast greens with good greens. But fast greens cost more to maintain. Fast greens are more susceptible to disease. Fast greens compromise some of the architectural integrity of great courses. Fast greens have absolutely caused more cases of the yips. And they’ve hurt pace of play. So there’s an innovation where we say, ‘OK, we’ve innovated with new grasses and new mowers, but has that really been innovation?’ It’s like over-seeding. It’s very expensive, and agronomically not good, and dormant Bermuda is a very good playing surface. I hope in the future we see a scenario where there is no over-seeding. Period. The notion that everything has to be perfectly maintained, it’s bad for the game, and bad for enjoyment."

"‘Keep your fairways drier, but longer.’ It’s good, because for the average player, their ball hits and gets a little bit more distance. For the good player, it actually becomes more strategic, because you have to worry about what your ball is going to do after it lands, where is it going to bounce and roll to if it’s drier. The average player can bounce balls into greens."

"‘When I look back at the USGA over the decades, my biggest regret would be what has happened with distance. It’s been the thing, probably more than any, that has been the most harmful to the game. Billions of dollars have been spent to alter golf courses—and for what? If I said in front of a thousand golfers, ‘Who would like to hit the ball shorter?’ would any hands be raised? They’d think I had lost my marbles. Nobody wants to hit the ball shorter. On the other hand, increased distance has had a profoundly negative effect on golf courses. They’ve had to expand, they’ve had to use more resources to maintain. It takes more time to play. It takes more land and construction costs for new golf courses. And in some cases, architectural integrity has been compromised. Are any of these things good?"

These kind of Statements make me glad Mike Davis is at the Helm of the USGA.

While I like all of those statements......and love that he made them...
actions speak louder than words


1.Officials(including davis) at the USGA speak publicly of target speeds of 14 in their championships,
2.fairways get tighter/shorter every year-at higher end and championship conducting courses
3.The USGA governs the game-aren't they the ones to regulate distance?
and now, they've decided green reading books are the next target.
What rock do they live under?-First anchoring putters-now this?
I hate green reading books and caddie conferences, but none of that affects courses and the game the way the ball and progressively hotter equipment do.
Maybe ban cheater lines then we'll talk books


Lip service-nice lip service-but just that

[Peter Pallotta]

We all have our perspectives. I don't doubt that Mr. Davis is being sincere in sharing his wishes and regrets. But for many years, his livelihood and vocation and interactions/relationships and sense of place in the world (in short, his perspective) have revolved around simply *tweaking* a decades-old "winning score of par" model of US championship golf. It is a model that now celebrates graduated rough; fussy and intrusive tee-box set-ups; ultra-managed and fine tuned playing conditions/maintenance regimes; expensive, top-golfers-in-the-world-focused course preparations; and an hierarchical pre-tournament venue-selection process that prioritizes long modern courses or significantly narrowed classic courses.  Because of *my* perspective/background, I don't know anything about working for the USGA or about running major championship events or managing equipment companies or handling club members; but similarly, because of Mr Davis' background/perspective, I don't think he would know much about how the average golfer plays the game or how fun and engaging golf courses are designed (and maintained) or about what it takes for the vast majority of the 20,000 or so golf courses in the country to survive, let along flourish. I'd listen intently to every word Albert Einstein might share with me about physics; but I don't think I'd be obliged to pay much attention if he tried to tell me how to pour out and finish a concrete walkway and patio behind my house.
Peter
         

[Joe Sponcia]

Davis:  Spoken like an amazing politician.  Syringing greens, idiotic set-ups that are zero percent fun to watch. 


"I know all of the reasons we should reign in the ball, but my allegiance is to the equipment manufacturers, not you $15 per year paying peasants'. 

I would rather him just be honest and say the cat's already out of the bag and I'm not going to be the one to put it back in.  Maybe Mr. Payne's successor will have the guts to do what should have already been done? 

[Ronald Montesano]

I think that we underestimate what Mike Davis has done for golf. Had he not been at the helm these last years, lord knows what carnival fun house might have materialized. He did what he could, within the somewhat-flexible parameters of an organization that could fire him at whim and will.


By the time we are old enough to appreciate "walk a mile in my shoes," we are too old to risk a restart and make a difference. Ahh, humanity.

[Ira Fishman]

I agree that we should not underestimate Davis' contributions.  The hypocrisy about the ball and distance is just that, hypocrisy.  But he has tried some pretty bold things:  going back to Merion, the back to back US Men's and Women's Opens at Pinehurst, promoting the driveable par four in Championship competition, giving Chambers Bay a shot.  The last did not work out especially his decisions about course conditions, but all of the moves showed vision and guts.

[Tony Ristola]

"When the time comes, I want to do some volunteering, to stay engaged with the game. A bit of involvement in golf architecture would be fun. I’m not qualified to actually design my own course, but I’d love to team up with someone. Just to help. Just to go out and dig in the dirt. I’d love to do that."

That's Mike Davis here: http://www.golfdigest.com/story/changing-course-the-usgas-mike-davis-shifts-with-the-game-and-the-culture

I'm curious what some of the architects here think of that, how they think that would work out.

P.S. If this was already posted, please merge. I looked and didn't see anything…

I'm wondering, would he be doing a George Bahto at Brandon, or something else? It all depends.


Not to derail the OP, but he brings up rolling back the ball, and the masses wouldn't like it. A few points:


Perhaps, but the truth is, most golfers don;t hit the ball well enough, often enough to know they'd be losing yards. I bet a blind test could be done, giving a mass of average golfers a "test ball" that flew 20% shorter, but claiming the ball is from a "known manufacturer" with the latest in material technology and performs at the limits of allowed distance. They could offer higher spin, and lower spin balls (all the same ball mind you), and 99% would claim what a wonderful ball it is.


They have some 300 million in the bank. They can afford to at least try to make the case to the public.


The USGA is there to make tough decisions on behalf of the game, and there isn;t a bigger issue, and they're punting.

[Carl Rogers]

Is there any information out there about the USGA set up of Erin Hills?