Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Recent reports indicate that USGA officers/officials have decreed that there will be no rollback of the ball.

Why is the USGA opposed to this concept ?

[Steve Lang]

 

They must be too busy growing the game.  

Now, if they adopted the name USG I&B Association, maybe they'd have.. nope, no way,.. never mind.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

The USGA and R&A believe distance increase is basically at the outside edge of the technological envelope anyway and  any further increases, however they may come down the pike are controllable through more efficient testing procedures backed up by their long-standing ability to deem future I&B non-conforming.

That, of course, is regarding a universal distance rollback! On the issue of a roll-backed "competition ball" only, they don't want to do that as it would for the first time in their history create bifurcation in I&b and lack the unity in I&B for all they have always felt should be maintained. This policy is extremely clearly stated in their recent "Joint Statement on  Principles" that can be found on their website under the "equipment" tab.

Obviously, you don't or may not agree with this but this is their official policy and statement at present.

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

I have no clue and I haven't seen anything that suggests to me that USGA officers have even given the issue any serious thought.

Every USGA officer should read Geoff Shackelford's new book several times.

[Willie_Dow]

Tim

I sure agree with you.  But it is going to take a lotta time for this to sink in with those around us.

If more of us had a little patience, and didn't try to create a tomorrow, yesterday, better decisions would have come out of "Why".

Willie

[Tim_Weiman]

Willie:

The last thing I want to do is exaggerate my small contribution, but I was honored to lend support to Geoff because he has so courageously taken on issues that the golf community needs to seriously think about.

The Future of Golf reminds me of Tom Doak’s Confidential Guide in some ways. Both Geoff and Tom had the courage to stand up and say some things that probably offend some people but really need to be said. I’ll always respect them both for that.

The USGA is a big disappointment right now. Hopefully, the situation can be turned around. By calling a halt to the silly golf technology arms race the UGSA can return itself to its rightful place in the game.

[John_McMillan]

I have no inside connections to their concerns, but I think a very good guess is a lawsuit from equipment manufacturers.  

Rolling back the distance standards means that instantly some equipment is going to be non-conforming.  The PGA Tour lost a large lawsuit to Ping Corporation over the Tour's decision that certain Ping clubs were non-conforming, and given the amount of cash the USGA is sitting on, I think they are very conservative in how they manage their legal exposure.

[TEPaul]

Tim:

If you haven't seen anything that suggests to you that the executive officers of the USGA (R&A) have given this issue any serious thought you should click on USGA.com, click on "equipment", the equipment tab at the top, click on the "Joint Statement of Principles" and read it very carefully and you'll see they've apparently given this some serious thought. You or me or Pat may or may not agree with them but it appears they've given it some fairly serious thought! If there're any officers of the USGA or R&A who have not seen this statement or aren't particularly familiar with the import of it then that would certainly be a different matter. I hope that's not so though! I have a pretty good feel for how an executive committee like that operates and that "Joint Statement of Principles" is a pretty fundamental statement on a pretty significant issue and one that must certainly have been seriously discussed and considered at board meetings. It doesn't look to me like just some remark that was issued by the Executive directors of the USGA and R&A with a cc to the executive committee members.

[JohnV]

I have no clue and I haven't seen anything that suggests to me that USGA officers have even given the issue any serious thought.

Tim, I'm offended by that statement.  To assume that the people at the USGA don't care about the game just because they might not hold the same opinion as you do is ridiculous.  It is the life of the employees, most of whom could earn a lot more money outside the USGA, and the volunteers who spend thousands of dollars each year supporting the game.  To imply that they don't give serious thought to issues like this is an insult to them and all the work they do.

There are definitely people who are at the USGA who would like to see a roll-back (see some comments from past presidents in Golfweek recently) and there are others who don't feel it is neccesary or desirable.  So far the later ones have held sway.  That might change if evidence accumulates that the problem is continuing to grow.

But don't ever assume that they don't care or that they don't give serious thought to the issue because they do.  Do you think that the guys at the I&B center don't have exact data as to how much of the extra distance is due to the club, the ball and the person swinging it?  You bet they do because they are scientists and they love to do experiments like that.  Evidently the data isn't strong enough to convince enough people to make a change.

They tend to move slowly because they realize that knee-jerk reactions can often be worse than no change so they'd rather err on the side of caution.

[TEPaul]

JohnV:

Please notice that Tim Weiman said nothing at all about all the people who work for the USGA--who are employees---he apparently was talking about the 15 member executive committee---he called the people he was talking about on this distance issue 'executive officers'. There sure are a lot of good folks who work up there in Far Hills and some of them aren't all that sanguine about some of the things that're going on today in golf or up at Far Hills but don't forget in the end of the day it's only those 15 folks on the executive commitee who have the final say--they're the only one who vote!

[Tim_Weiman]

JohnV:

First, I apologize if my comments were offensive to you personally.

That aside, I chose my words carefully saying "I haven't seen" anything that suggests the USGA has seriously thought about the technology issue. If there is any USGA reading material worth consulting - Tom Paul made one reference - I'd be happy to read it. By no means am I saying I've read everything on the subject.

FYI, my last conversation with a USGA official - I'll leave the name out of this discussion - really impressed me by how little he had thought about the technology issue. The guy came across more like a manufacturer's rep than somebody in the business of being a regulator. Then, too, not long ago I spoke with someone at a very well known club which has served as the site of numerous USGA championships. This gentleman was very clear in his view that without costly changes to the golf course the USGA would not return.

Where did this gentleman get such an idea if not from the USGA?

It is time to acknowledge that ball and club technology that encourages or requires costly modifications to golf courses is inappropriate technology. The USGA should be out front making this point. Until they do, we can’t be too worried about hurting people’s feelings. The message needs to heard and repeated over and over again. The golf technology arms race makes absolutely no sense.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Paul:

Let me be clear. These issues aren’t personal. I simply said I haven’t seen or read anything that comes even close to suggesting the golf technology arms race makes sense.

To the club I’ve mentioned that is considering an expenditure of a few million dollars just to accommodate a small elite group of members, I made the following point recently “do you realize how much the $10,000 assessment would be for each member?......it is the equivalent of twenty new $500 drivers…..why would any member buy twenty new $500 drivers when he can’t even play from the existing (6,700) back tees now?”

Tom, these are smart business people, but until I came along nobody had ever posed such questions to them. One board member privately acknowledged he was embarrassed he hadn’t thought of it in the same terms.

So maybe progress can be made. The USGA just needs to get its act together.

[A_Clay_Man]

Asking why, as Pat does, implies speculation, since no one I know is on the committee (or any).

One reason I can get behind as to why, is because the usga governs the whole game. Not just the game of those who can swing over 110 mph.

PAt- How about just telling all of us why?

[BCrosby]

Whatever the level of scrutiny the USGA has given to the issue, at a minimum they owe their national membership a full and accurate briefing of their technological findings to date and their reasoning as to why they have elected to make no changes.

Technology is the single biggest issue in the game. And no doubt the USGA has given it some thought. But. . .

What sort of public announcements have we heard about it from the USGA? Other than cryptic, vague comments to the effect that everything is fine, nothing.

What are their labs telling them? We don't know because they won't tell us.

What specific proposed changes have they reviewed and rejected? We don't know because they won't tell us.

What specific proposals have been discussed with the PGA, the R&A or other sanctioning bodies about competition balls and why were they rejected? We don't know because they won't tell us.

Given the prominence of the technolgy issue, the USGA's deliberations need to me much more transparent than they have been. Or at least less opaque.

They need to do the unthinkable at Far Hills. They need to facilitate a public debate on the topic. I'm not holding my breath.

Bob

[Alfie]

"They tend to move slowly because they realize that knee-jerk reactions can often be worse than no change so they'd rather err on the side of caution." (JohnV)

John ; with every respect, this knee jerk reaction has been evident within the game for 70 years, and more !

Tim Weiman's statements evoke nothing but an honest opinion and "common sense" appraisal of golf in the 21st century and should be applauded for speaking out !

Do the USGA / R & A really know what they are doing ? Does anybody know what "they" are doing ?
Try sending an e-mail to the R & A website and see if you get a reply ? www.randa.org

I could say that "I" have been insulted by those Titleist adverts having a go at golfers who think like Tim, myself, and countless others using this website. But I laugh ! People who try to ridicule others, usually do so in fear of protecting their own interests ?

I only recently found the words of Max Behr on this website and I'm delighted to quote ;

"But the manufacturer of the golf ball who is in business for profit, and who cares nothing for the health of golf, has been permitted to sugar the instincts of his customers with a ball that is far greater offense to tradition than what the face of the club, the shape of the club, or the materials of which is made could ever be." ex The Ball Problem by Max Behr, Jan 1927.

Golf is embroiled in a world of politics, whether we like that scenario or not ! Political leaders fall by the wayside as they disappoint their followers. Why should golf be so different ?
Why is golf so afraid to even try the roll ball back at one PGA event ? It is possible to do so - why don't they try it ?

If you don't shout out - ye'll get nowt !

Alfie Ward. Scotland.

[rgkeller]

I believe that the august members of the USGA board do their USGA duties as a respite from the high pressure nature of their daily lives.

Since they view the USGA and golf as a relief from the real world, they are loath to confront real world problems that will intrude on their sanctuary.

The USGA staff, on the other hand, has been corrupted by the golf manufacturers and their marketing schemes.

The USGA latest defensive posture that technology has gone as far to the edge of the envelope as possible is so ridiculous a premise that, if the USGA's position was not ruining the game, we would all be dissolving in paroxysms of laughter.

[TEPaul]

Tim Weiman:

Regarding your post #11, I know exactly what you're trying to say concerning the USGA and the so-called arms race in equipment technology. However, from the way that post #11 or yours is written it would definitely seem, for starters, the ones who need to get their act together are those members of that club you mentioned who're responsible for making some significant investment in their club and assessing the membership for what you claim is some small and insignificant elite group. Is that really necessary because of the so-called arms race in golf equipment technology? From what you said about that club it would certainly not seem so.

Maybe one of the things the USGA should do now is write a letter to all their member clubs which are probably most in America and ask them why in the world they would ever want to consider these kinds of illogical investments in their courses in the name of a technological golf equipment arms race when there's no reason in the world to assume that Tiger Woods and his PGA Tour brethren would ever use their course!

[TEPaul]

rgkeller;

If perchance the technological equipment arms race hasn't put too much of a damper on your humor after you've finished dissolving in paroxyms of laughter over the USGA why don't you tell us all what the future will bring in the way of distance increase? How about just a little hint, at least? Come on Pal, you can tell us---God knows you must know something!

[rgkeller]

All sorts of middle aged amateurs hit the ball distances that would not be believed ten years ago.

The USGA's hiding behind the myth that only a very very small percentage of professionals gain from the new technology would be misinformation too outrageous for even the USGA to undertake.

[Tim_Weiman]

Alfie:

Thank you for your kind comments. There is so much common sense in the UK & Ireland when it comes to golf that I hope we in the States can start importing some of it.

Geoff Shackelford is really the guy who deserves credit for writing the book he did. As someone in the golf business, he has taken a risk that someone like myself doesn't face. But, hopefully people here can offer support. Your words, like those of BCrosby and RG Keller are certainly encouraging. But, there is a long battle ahead to bring some sanity on this issue.

FYI, during Tom Doak's annual Renaissance Cup this past fall I spoke with someone quite familiar with Geoff and his work. I don't believe he knew about Geoff's coming work about the ffuture of golf. What this gentleman said was interesting. He said "Goeff is one of the brightest, best minds in golf......but he just won't go along.....he just won't go with the flow".

Well, thank God Geoff doesn't! We need far more people to speak out about how silly the golf technology arms race is.

[JohnV]

Tim, the Executive Director is frequently considered an officer so I took your comment to include employees.  I have seen things such as the document that Tom Paul mentioned.  In addition, I think it would be foolish to assume that just because you haven't seen something that no thought has gone into the issue.  The changes to the club over the last few years as well as the changes in the way balls are being tested should be proof enough that a lot of thought is going into the issue.

As for the club that has been told that it would need to make changes in order to hold further USGA events, that is a choice for the club to make.  They aren't being told that they must change their course.  Only that if they want to have another event they would need to change it.  There are plenty of clubs that held USGA and R&A events in the past that chose not to do that and are quite happy not having events there.   Courses that held the US Open in 1904 couldn't handle the competitors of 1954 so why should a course that was adequate in 1954 assume that in 2004 it could continue to be adequate without changes.  And yes, sometimes this change in adequacy can happen quite quickly.

rg, what evidence do you have to say the the employees have been corrupted?  That is the type of statement that I object to most and that probably accomplishes the least in solving the problem.

Alfie,
Shortly after Max Behr wrote that, the USGA did make a knee jerk reaction in introducing the "floater" ball.  "In 1929 USGA adopted a 1.68", 1.55oz ball for the years 1930-31, but the universal condemnation of this balloon made them quickly rethink, and from January 1932 settled on the 1.68", 1.62oz specifications." - Leith Society History of the Rules website.   I wonder if his and other's comments caused this debacle.  Perhaps that is why they are slow to change today?

You say that people who try to ridicule others usually do so in fear of protecting their own interests.  The only ridiculing I see around here is of the USGA and R&A.  Perhaps the people doing it have their own best interests at heart also.  But, since they are fighting the good fight, that is ok.

[TEPaul]

Alfie:

I hear from Geoff Shackelford that you've gotten into the essays of Max Behr. Good show my good man! When one considers when he wrote some of those articles such as "The Ball Problem" one can't help but notice how eerily foreboding they are, wouldn't you say? And to think how long ago he wrote those essays!

Many if not most of those essays were written in the 1920s and to the USGA itself, although all his essays were published in golf magazines I believe. What Behr said and what you just quoted concerning the equipment manufacturers seems like it was written right here on Golfclublas today, wouldn't you say?

However, there're a number of contributors to this site, particularly one Rich Goodale who may even be frightfully concerned about the equipment technology arms race today and who surely is critical of the USGA who still maintains most vociferously that Behr was a ridiculous pompous ass? It seems there's a good deal of inconsistency in that, wouldn't you say? Why do you suppose that is?

[JohnV]

Tim,

I agree that Geoff is a very bright person and I agree with much of what he says.  I hope he continues to speak up, as we need him and others to do that.

My problem comes about when people start making assumptions about peoples motives and knowledge in the absence of any true information.

I do wish the USGA would be more open about the information they have just because it might cause everyone to understand their decisions better or lead to better refutations of those decisions.

[rgkeller]

<<rg, what evidence do you have to say the the employees have been corrupted?  That is the type of statement that I object to most and that probably accomplishes the least in solving the problem.>>

What does the former head of the USGA testing staff now do for a living?

How much income does the USGA receive from manufacturers advertising budgets?

Corruption can occur incrementally and without malice of forethought.

[JohnV]

rg,

As far as I know the USGA gets little money from manufacturers.  They have no advertising in their publications or on their website.  Any advertising that might go into programs is actually contracted by the club that is running the event, with the possible exception of the Opens.  They do receive a lot of money from corporate tents, but I think most of them are bought by non-golf enterprises.  I would be a lot more concerned about the PGA Tour's financial ties (see the Titleist logos next to all those players on their website) than the USGA's.

As for Frank Thomas' employment, of course he is working with manufacturers, he understands the industry and technology as well as anyone and he has to make a living.  The USGA probably didn't pay him well enough to retire.  But, perhaps you would prefer he goes back to making fishing rods.