Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Scott Seward on September 12, 2003, 05:43:47 PM
-
After reading Geoff Shakelford's latest diatribe, I am left wondering - is there anything that he likes about the game right now? To summarize his points (many of which are strongly defended and well thought-out):
- The USGA has created a course set-up template that robs many masterpieces of their integrity. The USGA has its head in the sand about technology, the USGA....Oh well, lets blame the USGA for everything.
Being very pro USGA, I find it difficult to read this endless litany, though I think again that Geoff is right about many things. I do know that when you are the governing body, people will take shots at you, right or wrong. It would be interesting to get Geoff in a presidential style debate with either David Fay or MArty Parkes, both very good communicators.
Two thoughts from my perspective:
- The Russian Tea Room was a mistake, but the USGA knew going in that this was a possibility. The association will makea profit on its sale - this was studied before the initial purchase - so why is this being picked on as evidence of mismanagement?
- The USGA moves carefully with regards to technology because not to do so invites litigation. Yes the coffers are full right now, but I wiuld rather see this money spent through its foundation or other projects than being tied up in litigation.
-
This is a tough topic, to me at least.
Not knowing Geoff personally (yet - I'll get out there someday & buy him a beer or three) & judging from his columns, posts on here & fantastic written work, I'd hypothesize that Geoff in fact LOVES much about golf & even a lot about the game as it stands now.
Having met a handful of individuals who work at or with the USGA in either a paid or volunteer position, I'd say they LOVE the game just as much.
Anytime you have individuals with deep seated passions and beliefs, they are bound to conflict in some way. Sometimes people who are great guys are so passionate about things that they have a hard time showing the restraint that would probably serve them better. This site illustrates this better than just about anything else.
I often wonder if the state of the game (& in many ways, the state of life) is best served by having deeply passionate people on both sides of the aisle & maintaining things through frequent butting of heads. Speaking as someone who in his personal life is almost 100% non-confrontational (try not to fall over laughing if you're bored at my tussles with Patrick), my experience is that the calm reasoned approach doesn't as well as one would hope.
Lastly, reading someone's written words on the net can never replace seeing & listening to them in person. Sometimes positions come across as much angrier and much more intransigent online than they really are.
The one thing that I think would lessen concerns quite a bit, however, would be if the USGA were a little more open with their thinking. I know this is asking a lot, but it is really difficult for even me, a golfer who plays primarily at munis & cheap public courses, to sit back & see what is being done to many old private classic courses and not question what is being done, as well as not liking the examples set each year at the US Open. I can only imagine what it must be like for Geoff, who has devoted years of his life to studying architecture, written several incredible books about the subject & written an in depth biography on George Thomas & his golf courses (one of my all time favorite golf books, BTW) to have to sit ringside & watch what's being done at Riviera. Scream bias all you want, I have yet to hear anyone outside of the principals involved say anything good about the recent work done. When announcers on TV tapdance around when commenting on the course, you get a feeling things aren't too good.
-----
On a separate note, the skeptic in me says I'll believe they'll profit from the sale of the Russian Tea Room when I see it. But that just the skeptical former financial geek in me speaking. :)
-
I agree with you totally. I don't mean any of this personally, (and keeping in mind that yes, what is written on a forum can come out entirely different than hearing the person speak), I think his latest writings struck me as gratuitously harsh. I too would like to see the USGA come out swinging more, but they can't afford to. They sometimes seem like a gentle giant, endlessly provoked but never a reaction.
-
Scott,
You are right, I don't like much about the state of certain aspects of the game and certainly the R&A deserves as much criticism. I'm not sure which "diatribe" you are referring to, but I don't think I'm going out on a limb saying that the sport is headed in an unhealthy direction, nor am I alone in expressing concern for classic golf courses (I just write about it because no one else is). I've been reading too much Max Behr lately, but when you read his stuff and know what was being warned about 75 years ago, you realize how far golf has drifted from the principles that jumpstarted the sport a long time ago.
The criticism directed at the USGA is out of respect for what the USGA once was and can be under leadership that values tradition and architecture. I want to see a healthy, strong, USGA for the good of the game, and respect what its founders believed in and in the traditions that many of them fought for over the years. But I have concern for some in the current regime's willingness to accept compromising golf courses and common sense values, as opposed to taking a stand against manufacturers who would like golf to be a consumer pursuit, not an adventurous recreational one.
I am not alone in this feeling. I've talked and received very nice emails from several in the organization who are frustrated with what has happened, so I'd like to think that some of my writing on this issue is, if nothing else, defending those who have devoted their life to golf, the rules, tradition, etc... and who are concerned as well (whether they agree with all of my points or not) but are unable to voice their opinions.
Naturally, I'd love the opportunity to have a "presidential style" forum discussing the role of architecture, technology, Golf Journal, the Tea Room, social engineering, amateur status and ball testing with Mr. Fay. For instance, I know from my brief communications with him that we have very different views about the role of architecture and technology, and he has shared his views about forums such as this (he's not a big fan of discussion and GCA, though he claims to have never logged on to GCA...).
At times Mr. Fay believes courses should bend and change to accomodate technology, other times he's voiced similar concerns that mirror those I've expressed, so it would be interesting to get some clarification. I'm finishing up a book laying out a case for the future of golf that covers these issues and various other uh, diatribes that hopefully present a constructive argument against letting the manufacturers run golf into the ground. So I'm sorry to report, but the "endless litany" won't be wrapping up just yet.
Geoff
PS - I'm not alone in criticizing the USGA, and certainly people who are much wiser, older and accomplished than myself have said worse things about the USGA than I have:
I can tell you right now this ball thing is coming to an end. Otherwise it'll be the demise of golf courses…I guarantee as sure as I'm sitting here, the USGA has not had the leadership to do it, and I'm an admirer of the USGA. Something's going to be done in the future, but by whom, I'm not sure.
-Gary Player, 2003
The people we looked to in order to maintain the integrity of the game failed us. They didn't have enough foresight or courage. I lay total blame at the foot of the USGA.
-Deane Beman, former commissioner of the PGA Tour
I'm sorry, they didn't get a grip on the manufacturers. And now they are trying to make it up by changing the greatest pieces of art work that we have in the world. I think that they went about this all wrong. Meaning the USGA should have stopped this before it has ever gotten to this point instead of changing great golf courses."
-Hal Sutton
The USGA have been timorous, despite investments valued at $150 million. A rollback is anathema, and they fear that core constituents, American amateur golfers, would revolt because they believe that springy clubs and new balls matter. Thus, no action is taken because of an illusion.
-Frank Hannigan, former USGA Executive Director
-
First of all, Geoff, I have the upmost respect for your writings. I have all of your books and agree with most everything you say - especially when it comes to classic architecture.
And I know you are not alone with regards to the USGA. Perhaps my feelings come from a sense that they alone are bearing the brunt of criticism for what is wrong with the game right now, and I don't think this is right. I think the organization still stands for what is right but if anything, is guilty of being both too careful and maybe a little naive.
-
"Perhaps my feelings come from a sense that they alone are bearing the brunt of criticism for what is wrong with the game right now, and I don't think this is right. I think the organization still stands for what is right but if anything, is guilty of being both too careful and maybe a little naive."
Scott:
I agree with you that the USGA does still stand for what is right in many ways. However, as far as bearing the brunt of criticism for what is wrong with the game right now, I don't think that's right either that the USGA solely bear the brunt for the reasons why. The manufacturers definitely bear the brunt for the reasons why that problem came to be to a large degree but that's not really their responisibility to ponder and police the limits of balls and impliments--that's the responsibility of our national golf governing organization that at the present does have the sole responsibility in the USA for monitoring Balls and Impliments and their effects on the game and the game's architecture now and in the future.
It's clearly not a simple issue or a simple one to enforce but if they either won't or can't do it than who will? That seems to be what Geoff Shackelford is trying to point out. Geoff Shackelford is not exactly revealing some secret here--just defining the problem more clearly and comprhensively than most anyone has. The USGA really shouldn't continue on to act as if nothing is in the wind here--they more than most know there is. Geoff's primary point is they just have to act sooner rather than later and most defintely not consider not acting at all!
-
Scott Seward:
I'm not sure what you mean by referring to Geoff's writings as a "diatribe". Can you tell us what Geoff has written that you don't agree with?
-
Scott,
I do very much appreciate what you are saying because at times I wonder myself if this subject is really worth pursuing or if I'm too hard on the USGA or if it's reached the broken record/diatribe point. Understand my criticism of the organization comes from a tough love perspective. I had hoped that they could maintain a position of authority and respect in the sport because there are no alternatives that would be a positive force running the sport (The Tour? Too consumed with money; The R&A? Obviously clueless and a hindrance to the USGA's efforts; The PGA of America? They won't even fight for their own members, must less the game).
The USGA's recent mistakes and compromises have had the opposite effect of strengthening their cause. Mix in some incredible arrogance at times, and their relevance is basically similar to that of the USTA: tournament organizer and little else.
So is the issue of the ball/distance important? Personally, I think it's the most important in the history of the USGA and the sport (it has been for 75 years when you see what Darwin, MacKenzie, Jones and Behr all wrote). And sadly, I sense the USGA leadership doesn't see how vital it is because they're acting on everything but the fundamental issue before them. More disturbing than that is ignorance of the traditions that are the foundation of golf. It's pretty sad when many of the same folks who tell you what traditionalists and stewards they are, back up their views by bastardizing various traditions. Some do it knowingly hoping to save face, most just don't seem to have given it much thought.
My goal in writing on this subject (at least with "The Future of Golf") is to put together the pieces of the architecture-distance-fun-cost puzzle to make a case for the long term health of the sport, because it's a complicated mix but one that just has to be discussed sooner rather than later.
Regards,
Geoff
-
Geoff, While I agree with much of what you write about the problems with the game, the thing that bothers me is that you NEVER seem to pass up the opportunity to get in the gratuitous shot at David Fay or the USGA. Take your comments on the Judy Rankin article on higher par numbers for women for example,
Oh, and she reports that the USGA's David Fay likes her idea...he also liked the idea of buying the Russian Tea Room for $16 million and turning it into a museum.
You can't just say that David Fay liked the idea, you have to hit him over the head for the Russian Tea Room in talking about an article that had nothing to do with it. Since I wasn't in the room when the decision to buy the RTM was made, I don't know if David Fay pushed it or had it foisted on him by the Executive Committee. Do you?
-
I see Geoff as someone who (to paraphrase a hero of mine) is standing athwart history yelling "Stop!" The problem to me is that there are not enough Geoff Shackelfords out there.
It is easy to sometimes think of Geoff as being constantly negative but he is writing and saying things that many others should be writing and saying and are not. And by that I mean most of the mainstream golf and sports media.
Witness the recent Golf Digest "Power" issue. What a great time to really examine the whole ball/equipment issue in a serious manner. Of course they didn't do it. Instead we got the usual instruction nonsense with hardly any mention of the equipment controversy with the exception of one little half joking column by David Owen that questioned the point of the quest for distance.
We need many more people out there questioning where the game is headed and holding the governing bodies accountable for their actions or non-actions.
-
Tim - Its more a general tone of the writing that I take issue with (John V's post highlighted this).
I think Geoff's responses are well taken. I am personally so conflicted on the ball issue, I find it difficult to form a solid opinion. Unquestionalbly something must be done and no one has written more about this than Geoff, but I also trust Dick Rugge - I think he is one of the smartest, well-spoken administrators at the USGA.
-
I haven't read all of Geoff's books, but it appears to me in reading the other posts that, if there is any disagreement, at most, it may be a disagreement of Geoff's style rather than content or issues.
With all due respect, Scott, if the USGA is bearing the brunt of the criticism, it is because they are the governing body for amateur golf in the US. Your post says as much. That's all part of the "...buck stops here...can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen..." and other "trite" expressions applied to individuals and/or groups in leadership positions. That's just the way it is.
I sure have no idea what lead to the RTR; however, I'd feel worse if I discovered it were true that the USGA recognized up front that the potential for a museum was a stretch. That, in my opinion, would be very poor management.
The USGA and the Exec Board are supposed to be responsible stewards of the organization's funds. That stewardship does not include knee-jerking the purchase of a multi-million building in Manhattan -- it's called due dilligence. Hopefully, they will be able to sell the RTR for a profit, but when it comes to real estate, no one can ever make that guarantee. Even if they payed cash for the building, there are on-going expenses with all property, so to even break even, the building has to be sold for more than obviously, what they payed for it PLUS the ongoing support costs, the cost associated with the closing on the initial purchase, any costs associated with the sale that aren't covered by closing costs received and further, the "profit or loss" of the whole RTR venture has to be compared with the investment income lost from the monies used to purchase RTR.
Every organization needs to be prudent in actions which may "invite litigation;" however, in virtually every situation, there is also a point in time wherein too much caution results in opportunity lost forever -- especially, when it comes to potential litigation.
Most litigators will say that the best defense against a law suit of this variety is to have a clear mission, or guidelines, etc., On this score, I think that the USGA has failed miserably. I don't remember the details; however, I read recently that the USGA has revised one or several testing procedures. Either the standards or testing procedures used by the USGA prior to this recent change were SO OLD, and I mean REALLY old that I remember being absolutely stunned. Scott, to me, that is not caution. That's just plain dumb.
I'm sure that someone on this board will remember the article to which I refer.
I don't know anyone is the USGA. I'm familiar with names, but that's it; however, I have long felt that the organization, for whatever reason, were dragging their feet in addressing issues concerning equipment.
-
Scott,
Quite obviously I'm going to be sticking up for Geoff, because I do think he a quite sane voice of reason for the Game right now, and yes, Geoff is a friend, so I do have something to stake into it, just like John V. and Tom Paul who are equally just as close and personal friends who volunteer their services to the USGA.
That is the point I wish to address the most here in regards to the critical comment. It is the 5th amendment right as Americans that's at its best working here, voicing our opinions on the State of the Game, and quite frankly, judging by the equipment, the amount of courses being funded to get built, as well as the wrong dceisions that are being made on a daily basis on how to handle technology without destorying the Game as we know it--The USGA has bascially adopted the same foothold as the Jimmy Carter Adminstration with the hostages in Iran--That they are taking a firm stance! And yet still, nothing has happened.
We can open up any issue of Golfweek and know exactly what is happening at Callaway, or how Spaulding, a maker of Golf Equipment since the beginning of time, is no more. We take it as WORD, yet when we want to address the issues of the governing body, the very questionable practices or bad choices that have taken affect in regards to your $15.00 + annual contribution; As well as fully support the rehiring of the chairman of the membership committee Arnold Palmer, who says it is O.K. to cheat because it makes the Game more fun, then we have posts such.
I for one support anyone that volunteers their time and energy to help make the organization better, even if this means that some of them are maybe blowing the whistle on something bad that is happening without the people who support the USGA, knowing of.
Geoff's efforts are full of the passion and intellect that is needed to protect the Game from it's most dangerous enemy--who, I can assure you it isn't Geoff, who not only writes the most intellectual commentary on the Game today as we know it because he isn't the one showing a multi-million dollar profit from the last quarter, as well as promoting his latest book as being the longest and farthest.
(If I'm wrong, then he is buying dinner the next time out!)
So to Answer what does Geoff like?--Geoff likes the game of Golf, and is willing to go to the matresses to prove it. Even so much as willing to put his reputation behind it.
And since you mention to have so much knowledge of the intellect of Dick Rugge, May I ask you of your association with him and the USGA?
-
Scott Seward:
So you agree with the arguments Geoff has put forth, but disagree with the "general tone of his writing". Is that right?
If so, I'm curious what difference Geoff's "general tone" makes. Are you saying that if Geoff would just learn to write with a more pleasant tone, the USGA would finally act to put a stop to the golf technology arms race?
Isn't is possible that the USGA really is the problem rather than a few writers that occasionally speak out?
-
Tommy - I work for a regional association (NorCal)
We all can agree with Geoff's passion (I know he likes golf!). We all can agree with his knowledge. What I am responding to is the many criticisms - some justified, of an organization that I know bends over backwards to serve the game's best interest. It is easy to sit back from a far and take shots - some justified - at this organization, much like Rush Limbaugh, Al Franken and the rest take shots at our government. All of this is healthy to a certain degree, and necessary.
Because of my work, some of the criticism I take more to heart. The member of this board are knowlegable, passionate golfers. If they are not at least some what behind the USGA, then obviously there is a problem. So I defend them because I know the people, and I know their intent is pure.
-
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=5207;start=msg100414#msg100414
Here is an old thread on the USGA.
Geoff,
I think The Masters could start the ball by creating a Tournament Ball.
-
GeoffShac's message is a good one--a very good one--a pure one--and ultimately a very necessary one, in my opinion. Geoff's tone towards the USGA I only look at as something that may not get the desired effect from them--the USGA (if they are in fact paying attention to his message) that a kinder, gentler more apparently supportive tone combined with the same message might get from them. That's always been my concern and Geoff and I have talked about that for years now.
Be that as it may, GeoffShac's feeling is that actions speak louder than words and how much time must go on before one stops talking (saying you'll do something but not really doing it) and starts acting very proactively on this distance issue and it's effects on architecture once and for all?
I'm sure Geoff is somewhere between wondering if he doesn't hit them hard enough they simply won't pay attention and if he does hit them hard he'll create adverserialness from them toward both him and his message.
In a more intelligent and effective world, all of us, including the USGA should just forget about his tone and concentrate on his message--but will this ever be a more intelligent and effective world when it comes to issues such as this? That's the question.
And futhermore even any joker knows the message is always more important than the tone--at least retrospect tells us that! But then again one wonders about even that because the message GeoffShac is sending the USGA is frighteningly similar to the message the likes of William Flynn and the remarkable golf and architecture thinker and philosopher Max Behr was sending the same organization on the distance issue over 75 years ago. All we're sure of now is they really didn't listen to that message then at least not closely enough!
-
I fully support Geoff's "diatribe" to try to get the USGA to move more quickly on some issues that are important for the future of the game.
I sort of make an analogy with my constant diatribe against Roger Rulewich and the work being done to the Yale golf course. I take every opportunity to rip into him and the work being done in a very sharp and direct manner. Its like being on the lunatic fringe zelot position but it evokes responses and it keeps the important questions and issues out front where people are talking about them and thinking about them. That's a GOOD thing. Would a "kind and gentile" article do the same thing?
Maybe/Probably in the end Geoff won't get ANY credit for getting a satisfactory resolution to the issues of the ball and equipment (not that he wants any credit) but every time his articles get us to think about it and to write the USGA ourselves moves the situation closer to resolution. If someone didn't dump tea into the harbor of Boston would be be here today with the democracy we all share?
Here's to (peacefull) zealots!
-
Geoff has the guts accompanied by facts he’s dug up to take vigorous stands against what he feels could
be improved on or, in his view, is entirely wrong with our game and the grounds on which it is played.
Bravo Geoff - he’s shouting a lot of this out there to the masses - things a lot of us are thinking but are too
chicken-shit say.
He now has a platform - one he built piece by piece himself - from where he can state his views, often to
the chagrin to the powers to be.
Geoff, I’m proud of you and so are so very many of us.
Geoff’s stance is not that dissimilar to Tommy Doak’s stance on his, often blistery, attacks on golf course
architects and the some of what has been attempted to be passed off as good golf courses .......... the
you pat me on the back and I’ll do the same for you, routine.
We’ll piss-and-moan amongst ourselves - THEY DO IT PUBLICLY AT THE RISK OF DAMAGE TO THE
REPUTATIONS.
Keep up the good work guys and do not relent.
-
JohnV,
David Fay is the man up front. The Executive Committee and other volunteers are just that, volunteers, and at the end of the day Fay's job is to lead them in a positive direction. He's paid well to be a guardian of the USGA, the Committee and the sport. I think he's doing a bad job compared to his predecessor.
He may have been against the Tea Room for all I know, as he was noticeably absent (except for one mention) in the lengthy New Yorker piece that reminded us what a friend to multiculturalism the USGA has been. (Come on!) Mr. Fay's overall leadership style has led the organization to this bottom-line, "fudiciary responsibility," corporate spin mode that encourages people like Mr. Gleecher while discouraging substance.
Furthermore, as Scott has pointed out why he's not comfortable with my tone (and I fully understand where he's coming from), I just don't know how reasonable it is to question and criticize the ExCom when they are volunteers and when they seem to be learning on the job. They are not there to be public figures open to criticism for policies/disasters that were likely handed down to them. Several past presidents -- by the time they reached the big job anyway -- all have made very strong comments about the ball/technology situation as they were headed out the door. But it seems at the point one reaches the presidency, they have to devote their time to sort of a swan-song, celebration-of-their-service-parade instead of getting to accomplish something (Mr. Holland and Mr. Taylor stand out in this regard).
Mr. Fay seems to be passionate about anything that clears him of mismanagement, which is why he has surrounded himself with seven in-house lawyers (which appears to have made things a lot worse). You can say what you want about Frank Hannigan (and I don't agree with him quite often), but would the organization be in the bind it is in today under his leadership? I say no way. I find it hard to believe that he would stay on the job if they went ahead with the Russian Tea Room purchase nor do I believe he'd accept the complete elimination of Golf Journal nor shrug off compromises in amateur status issues. Not at least without a reasoned, passionate explanation to the ExCom who would like see a better way than the road Mr. Fay seems to lead them down (which could one of many roads, based on his public comments which are inconsistent).
Mike,
Hootie would be the ideal man on the ball thing, but as a wise soul recently pointed out to me, did you notice who the first people were to shake Mike Weir's hand when he won the Masters? A former USGA President, a future USGA President and an Executive Committee member. All in green coats! :)
Thanks for the nice comments all and Scott I do appreciate what you are saying. I do not want to sound like an Ann Coulter or Michael Moore where the message is clouded by histrionics and personal attacks. The point is to get everyone together to make this connection between architecture-technology-fun and cost and how the direction we're headed is just dreadful if we want to preserve the best traditions of golf. The point of the book I'm putting together is to fit those pieces together for those who are struggling to make the connection, and do it in an accessible way. Unfortunately, this requires building a case and presenting some anecdotes that do not reflect very well on the USGA.
Geoff
-
I have trouble visualizing a grown man who relishes making crank phone calls while walking a "Top Ten" course also being a zealot on a righteous crusade. :)
The original question is a good one. Geoff holds and expresses some very strong opinions which are shared by a good many folks on this site. Questions and warnings regarding balls and equipment have been around since the time of the featherie, and no doubt, Geoff, as a historian, has a superior long-term perspective than most.
In my opinion, the tone of his writing when reviewed comprehensively does betray a sense of despair or deep frustration. It is my understanding that Geoff rarely plays anymore, which if true, it is a real pity.
Unfortunately, the USGA does represent a wide constituency which probably includes a large majority that believes that longer and straighter is much better than the alternative. The current Titleist commercial where the traditionalist architect is rapping and jumps off the stage to a crowd of three is probably not to far from reality. I know that from my own experience at my home club, when I talk about the dangers of the arms race and the benefits of walking, I feel like I am jumping off-stage onto a concrete cart path with nobody to catch me.
What I am doing for about the third straight year is paying my USGA dues late, and sending them a nice letter with my veiled threat that continued inaction on the important issues will result in my withdrawal of further support (to which somebody in NJ is probably just rolling his eyes and pitching my letter along with a few others into the waste basket). Just like clockwork, my late notices and reminders keep coming, and I keep writing checks.
Maybe it does take Geoff's approach and a few zealots at the right times and places to change an erroneous majority position. In the absence of that, we can always play "conforming" equipment among ourselves and influence those clubs where we can to disregard the temptation to participate in the race.
-
This Russian Tea Room thing should not be part of this discussion on the distance problem and how that relates to architecture now and in the future. Talk about real apples and oranges!
The Russian Tea Room thing in the final analysis is probably better off the way it's going now--that is the USGA dropping the damn NYC museum thing altogether. None of us really know how the price they paid stacks up to what they might get for it under another use. That's not getting into real estate speculating simply the disposition of what may have been a necessary asset for them.
Why did they get into that project in the first place? Two reasons. 1. To better protect the historic assets they have now in a controlled atmosphere so those assets wouldn't continue to disintegrate in the uncontrolled (atmospheric) atmosphere they presently have in Far Hills. 2. To allow about ten times more people to see those historic assets since NYC is more accessible to so many more people than Far Hills.
Those are both admirable goals. So they ran into the bureaucratic labrynth that is the State of NY and certainly the city of NYC. God knows what kind of permitting and costs, massive museum restrictions et al, you name it, that were involved. NY and NYC are strange places to do real estate business in sometimes! Just ask Ken Bakst about that!
Why didn't they do better due diligence on the RTR before closing and figuring what all they were up against? Good question but do any of you know what kind of price it was they paid for that place? I bet no one on here has the remotest idea about that. What if they were handed a sweet-heart deal to pick that place up for cash with limted contingencies to close the deal?
I can tell you right now that Gleacher et al did not do as well in life and make as much money for the USGA as he did by being an idiot in business--I can assure you of that!
And don't be thrown a curve ball thinking that the revenue the USGA generates has anything to do with the fact that they're a non profit. Revenue isn't the point--what they end up using that revenue for is the point.
The attempt to buy TRT was for the purpose of taking the awesome collection of historical assets they do have and trying to make them available to far more people for the enjoyment of all those people who presumably care about golf. That right there falls nicely into the category of "For the Good of the Game" if you hadn't thought of that!
Frankly from the sound of what they got put through in NYC after buying the RTR I'm sort of glad to see them drop it. The thing probably would've been a money pit for the rest of time.
But this discussion should be about the distance problem and GeoffShac's message to that effect not the RTR.
-
Geoff Shackelford,
1 What, in you view, is Hannagan's most important accomplishment?
2 When did you first realize that the USGA had lost control?
-
Lou,
Could you expand on what this means: "I have trouble visualizing a grown man who relishes making crank phone calls while walking a "Top Ten" course also being a zealot on a righteous crusade." You've lost me on that one.
Tom,
I have to respectfully disagree with respect to the Tea Room. I think it speaks to the issue of the organization's mission, and how such forays have distracted them from the core issue of understanding why their role in equipment regulation is vital to maintaining a healthy sport. The organization seems distracted on the technology issue, or at least, the distractions keep taking their focus away from discussion and action on the most important topic at hand.
Robert,
Ah I wondered when you'd chime in! In my recent research and in talking to some USGA folks, I think Hannigan's most important accomplishment was managing Frank Thomas and utilizing his talents. I realize I have misunderstood the work that Mr. Thomas did and some of his past statements compared to what he was doing behind the scenes to prepare the USGA so they'd be ready to address some of the advances that have seemingly surprised them. As for when I realized when they had lost control, the book I'm writing starts out with a Preface explaining just that. I don't want to spoil it for you. :)
Geoff
-
Geoff:
For some reason I've never become too excited about the Russian Tea Room thing. I agree it does seem like a distraction from the USGA's core mission, but also probably share Tom Paul's view that it is also a distraction from the current discussion about the USGA's failure to address the technology issue.
I really want to see you succeed in raising awareness about the USGA's failure to address technology. Thus, I'd probably recommend forgetting about the RTR thing. Just explaining to people how silly the golf technology arms race is seems challenging enough. Why not try to fight and win one battle - not just any battle, but the most important one?
-
Tim,
I agree, and the Tea Room mistake is only a page or so in this book and I hope they can unload it and refocus on making a case for regulation of distance (unfortunately, their first case, "Phase II" isn't going to do much). I still believe it and inconsistency in amateur status principles speak to a larger picture of inconsistency in the USGA mission. It seems Frank Hannigan made a lot of enemies by always trying to keep them away from drifting, and obviously lost on some (getting into the handicapping business, for instance).
My overall focus is making the argument that deregulation has impacted golf in just the way it has in other failed industries deregulated in the name of "liberation." As in those other industries, the overall good have been forgotten and with that ignorance of the customer's price boundaries, comes great financial pain to those who wanted to be free in the first place. I think there is a strong case for the USGA to make by pointing to analogies of other deregulated industries, but how many of those folks who have a say in this actually believe in the benefits of regulatory agencies? That may be the crux of all these problems. We have regulators who don't believe in regulation.
Geoff
-
"Tom,
I have to respectfully disagree with respect to the Tea Room. I think it speaks to the issue of the organization's mission, and how such forays have distracted them from the core issue of understanding why their role in equipment regulation is vital to maintaining a healthy sport. The organization seems distracted on the technology issue, or at least, the distractions keep taking their focus away from discussion and action on the most important topic at hand."
Geoff:
Certainly I see your point about that but I just can't agree that it's TRT that's even remotely slowing the USGA down on any resolution to the distance issue. To me those two things truly are apples and oranges. If they didn't have one single other thing on their plate I'd still expect them to be dragging their feet on the distance problem as they have been for the same reasons they have been.
The reasons that's happening, has happened in the past has to do with a wide variety of problems and obstacles, at least problems and obstacles that they see, that has nothing more to do with issues other than those that involve the problems and solutions of the distance problem directly. It has nothing to do with the other things they're into, in my opinion.
TRT and a blown deal in NYC doesn't impact that whatsoever in my opinion. In other words that organization really is capable of walking, talking, acting on the distance problem and chewing gum at the same time--that is if they can see their way clear to overcoming those problems and obstacles they see on that one issue in and of itself. Frankly, in fairness to them, I believe there's far more we all need to know about what all exactly goes on in their world of attempting to get a real handle on this distance problem and to control this I&B world into the future.
Don't think I'm selling out on my support that something needs to be done by them on the distance issue now, because I'm not. Don't think I'm cowtowing to or cossetting the USGA for some reason either because I'm not doing that either--I hope.
It's just that I see them in a different light than most people do apparently. I've tried to deal with them on some other issues over the years and I can clearly see now that when you approach them it's not wise to come at them with ideas completely out of the blue without truly understanding what they are and how they need to operate even under the most ideal conditions. They don't operate under the most ideal conditions for them any longer and one needs to be completely cognescent of why and how that is. In a quick sentence if you or anyone wants to deal with them effectively and help solve some of the problems you think they have you just have to understand their problems and obstacles as they see them not just as you or I see them. Only then can you effectively work on solutions and obstacle removal that they'll buy into. And at that point they will, have and do buy into a process of problem solving.
But they need our support on this issue just as much as we need them now. It can be done but at this point there probably needs to be a ton more organization to generate that support. That's why I keep talking to you about this convocation idea--that needs to be as much as anything a massive public relations effort (public bigtime) to generate that support for a good resolution to a distance problem and what not solving it will ultimately mean to the playing fields of golf and even the strength of the game.
My basic feeling is if they thought yesterday, today or tomorrow they had that support they'd move hard to solve this thing yesterday or today. I believe that. I think support--voluntary support--is the life's blood of that organization, always has been and always will be--and they more than any of us understand that. The whole concept of the USGA is built around voluntary support--as they definitely are not the law of golf as so many of us assume they are for some unknown reason. Support is needed here--a two way street kind of support. I think if they felt they had that they would go public bigtime on this issue and they still do have enough cache, as you said yesterday, to call all the entities of golf together now and work hard on resolving this issue in a very public forum--and that includes all of us!
I'd be very curious to know if some one of us went to them or got someone they respect to go to them right now and tell them we're willing and probably ready to generate that kind of support---what they'd say and what they'd do.
Maybe that right there is the best next step!
-
Geoff,
My professional experience in the oil industry included a great deal of interest in the entire subject of regulation, so for more reasons than one I look forward to reading your work.
For what it's worth, regulation in the oil industry had an interesting history. We typically think of Republicans as being pro business and Democrats as being inclined to regulate in support of the consumer. That's why we always hear so many complaints from the Left about the Bush/Cheney connection to the oil industry.
But, the real story is different. In the 1970s a long list of very complicated regulations were imposed by the Republican Administrations of Nixon and Ford. Conversely, the elimination of all those regulations came under the Democratic Administration of Jimmy Carter who looked at all the well intended regulations put in place by Republicans and decided none of them made any sense. The only shame is that people actually thought Ronald Reagan was responsible as a crusader against anti business regulations.
But, that's another story. When it comes to golf, I do think we need more stringent regulations on technology. Personally I would favor a tournament ball and giving up the fiction that amateur weekend golfers play the same game as professional or leading amatuer quality players. We don't.
Evidence that the golf technology arms race ,makes no sense can be found in diverse locations such as Torrey Pines and Oakmont. Who the hell needs 7,500 yard courses? Why waste the money creating such monsters? Isn't it far more logical to simply introduce a tournament ball and eliminate the need for golf clubs to spend money changing their golf course to accomodate out of control technology?
The essence of the game is the BALANCE between player skill, technology and the playing field. If player skill has increased, that is all the more reason why "new" or "improved" technology is NOT needed. My God, aren't Tiger and his Tour colleagues good enough that they don't need Pro V1s?
Somehow we have to get people to understand that relative length - not absolute length - is what matters. A 325 yard drive is no better than a 275 yard drive if technology is behind the distance improvement. All that does is require money to be spent adjusting the golf course. Shouldn't the USGA be leading the argument against such nonsense?
Again, we don't need 7,500 yard golf courses. I doubt we need 7,000 golf courses. I'll bet 80 percent can be accommodated with 6,300 yard courses. Take that figure to 6,800 yards and the percentage of golfers adequately challenged goes up to 98%. So, why waste money on land, maintenance and course "improvements" just to accommodate a small elite minority? Isn't a competition ball a far better solution?
I don't buy into the notion that the USGA has to worry so much about lawsuits that they can't act. Baloney. If they want to require people to play in USGA championships with purple golf balls, they can. No court has any business stopping them and they won't. More seriously, if the USGA simply set specs that would put long drives in the 275 yard range, no court could stop them. The US Open is not the Callaway or Titleist Open. It is a USGA event. The USGA, not the manufacturers, has every right to detemine its own rules.
As I meet and talk to golfers - people who clearly love the game - one thing stands out:
They want to PLAY MORE not PAY MORE.
The USGA owes it to the little guy, the ordinary golfer to to put in place a simple set of regulations so that can be done. People playing either Torrey Pines or Oakmont should not be subsidizing professional golfers. Whenever money is spent "upgrading" the golf courses to accomodate new technology, that is what is happening: a subsidy for those with a wealth of skills (and probably money as well). It is a total waste of the average Joe's money.
No wonder Titleist ads make fun of golf architects. They really are trying to obscure how technology is hurting the average Joe. The manufacturers don't want people to see this. They don't want any accounting of how silly the golf technoilogy arms race is.
Okay, enough. I'll be accused of my own "diatribe"!
-
Great diatribe, Tim. :)
-
I really like the tough love platform. But as Tep illustrates hitting'em over the head with the wrong fruit, is just that, apple and oranges.
Geoff-
As Deep throat prompted, "follow the money". Questions as to how a non prof could amass a treasure chest of this magnitude, should be of interest to everyone. Especially those handing out the status.
If the usga was broke would anyone sue them?
With 150m in the bank, i'll bet there are sharks up all night, everynight, trying to figure a way to get it.
How does an org carry on, with business as usual, without cutting somewhere, someone and saving that kind of bling?
It undermines any notion of volunteering or setting a higher example. If golf can't set a higher example of conduct, it's just another "industry". A term which should forever be stricken from any golf related venture.
So, as you can see, the wrong turn did happen back around lungfish.
-
Mr. Seward,
You ask a legitimate question, and express a view that I am sure is held my many up and down the golfing hierarchy. I am not going to bother to defend Geoff, because he and others have done an admirable job of that.
Having said that, I hope you don't mind if I pose my own question, the answer to which I have never been able to figure out:
Why doesn't the USGA and the golf establishment like Geoff?
Please let me explain what I mean. . . The USGA's mission is to act "for the good of the game," and two of its main goals are to preserve golf's history and to ensure golf's future. Is there anyone out there who is more concerned with the good of the game, or who is more devoted to preserving golf's history and ensuring it's future than Geoff? So why the hard feelings?
It just cannot be personal. I think to much of the USGA to even consider the notion that its decision-makers would let personality and hurt feelings get in the way of the good of the game. Surely Mr. Shackelford is not the first opinionated and outspoken individual that the USGA has come across in the past 100+ years.
And it cannot be because Geoff has nothing intelligent, accurate, or original to say. For years now Geoff has been telling all of us just exactly where these technological advancements are leading us, and most of what he has been predicting has come to fruition, has it not? Yet again this year there have been significant jumps in the distances the ball is flying. Our greatest treasures have been modified and lengthened, then modified and lengthened, then modified and lengthened. Again and again, yet still they cannot keep up. Just imagine . . . Oakmont (Oakmont!) is substantially lengthened, yet it is still not long enough even for the Amateurs . . . so now it is to be lengthened/altered yet again?! Geoff saw all this coming when not many out there did.
So why is it that they don't like him or recognize that he might have something pretty important to say? I
For that matter, why isn't the USGA asking for Geoff's input? Why aren't they recognizing and highlighting his work and accomplishments? Why aren't they publishing his books and touting his ideas (giving him proper credit, of course?) And why isn't the USGA calling out those who are doing work in the USGA's name and saying, "Wait a minute, how do you respond to what this guy has been saying for a long time? Why aren't we embracing his ideals? After all, aren'twe supposed to be protecting the game?"
To go even further, why isn't the USGA financing a Geoff Shackelford lecture series? Why not send him around the country lecturing to the golfing public and hierarchy just what has been happening, and why it is so important that we deal with it? Have him speak at all the USGA's Championship's, to the volunteers, to the golfers, to the spectators. Let Geoff explain why golf's history is its future, and how we desperately need to understand the former to be able to progress into the latter.
Mr. Seward, I really like your idea of a debate between Geoff and officials of the USGA. But perhaps "debate" connotes too much hostility and disagreement; after all the USGA and Geoff ultimately want the same thing.
Perhaps it would be more useful to hold a forum or summit involving all the interested parties: the USGA, the historians and activists like Geoff, the manufacturers, representatives from some of the courses who have the most to lose, and some Joe Golfer-types. Nothing wishy washy, but an attempt to really hash out some of these issues and problems in a constructive forum, for the good of the game.
Regards,
David Moriarty
-
Geoff Shackelford,
I have to respectfully disagree with respect to the Tea Room. I think it speaks to the issue of the organization's mission, and how such forays have distracted them from the core issue of understanding why their role in equipment regulation is vital to maintaining a healthy sport. The organization seems distracted on the technology issue, or at least, the distractions keep taking their focus away from discussion and action on the most important topic at hand.
I think that the USGA is capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time. They're a fairly large organization with some depth, hence I think they're capable of multiple tasks.
I think your core issue is diluted and harmed, by harping on the RTR.
Whether it was a success or failure, financially, and to what degree, will be determined when it is eventually sold.
I believe you should focus on the other issues, which are far more important, and let the RTR go, it only acts as a drogue, impeding your progress on the vital issues.
Fifty seventh street is history, it's the future that is your/our MAJOR concern.
I's also suggest that you de-personalize the issues by removing David Fay as the chief protagonist.
Let your points stand on their merits, without introducing distractions that dilute or deflect your arguments.
P.S. How does it feel to enjoy "most favored Nation" status on this site ? ;D
Mike Sweeney,
I've been an advocate of the "Augusta" tournament ball for years.
A ball that could be adopted by the USGA, and in turn by every regional, state, and local golf association, and then by the individual clubs.
Hootie, could be GOLF"S salvation ;D
-
According to a source of mine at a national publication of import---not too long ago, Hootie and 4-5 other heavy hitters in the world of golf influence were prepared to not only float the idea but to offer an ANGC golf ball (presumably for use in that invitational tournament alone) that was significantly dialed down distance-wise.
These few influential men were gung-ho to do this and this national magazine of import was apparently prepared to publicize and push this concept in the name of controlling and possibly solving, to some degree, this recent distance problem.
Everybody was expectant and then apparently in an instance--"poof" it was all dropped and the idea was history.
What happened?
Good question but one should probably start by carefully reading the USGA/R&A's latest statement on the issue of equipment (balls and impliments). In fairly certain terms within that statement those two organizations state that they are not prepared to give up on the ages old fundamental that ALL equipment for players of all levels should be regulated under a single unified standard!
So for now, at least, it seems the regulating organizations don't want to entertain the idea of two separate I&B rules and regulations standards and that would include a so-called "competition" or "ANGC" ball for use by the high level players.
So it would seem that if ANGC chose to make and require use of such a ball in the Masters tournament that they might be going outside the USGA/R&A purview if they did that. Is that what stopped them?
No major competition, club, association et al has ever done something like that before that I'm aware of (except obviously in the dark ages of golf and golf organization that preceded organizational unity)---eg going outside the purview of the world's two I&B ruling bodies (USGA/R&A). Is that something we want to see happen now?
If a ball such as an "ANGC ball" took off and became somewhat popular throughout golf would not that put ANGC itself into some form of I&B competition with the USGA/R&A if those two organizations did not embrace such a concept (which would necessarily include two separate I&B standards?) within their own I&B rules and regulations?
There's more--there's another facet in that recent USGA/R&A statement which, potentially, to me at least, may be remarkable, if I understand it correctly, or, even if, they do.
Later--
-
This is the R&A/USGA's new "Joint Statement of Principles". Although there's no date on it, I assume it's very recent;
JOINT STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES
As the governing authorities for the Rules of Golf including equipment Rules, The Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St Andrews (R&A) and the United States Golf Association (USGA) have continued to monitor closely the effects of advancing equipment technology on the playing of the game. The R&A and the USGA are also aware that this subject has attracted wide-ranging comment and a number of conflicting views. History has proved that it is impossible to foresee the developments in golf equipment that advancing technology will deliver. It is of the greatest importance to golf's continuing appeal that such advances are judged against a clear and broadly accepted series of principles.
The purpose of this statement is to set out the joint views of the R&A and the USGA, together with the framework of key principles and policies which guide their actions.
In a historical context, the game has seen progressive developments in the clubs and balls available to golfers who, through almost six centuries, have sought to improve their playing performance and enjoyment.
While generally welcoming this progress, the R&A and the USGA will remain vigilant when considering equipment Rules. The purpose of the Rules is to protect golf's best traditions, to prevent an over-reliance on technological advances rather than skill, and to ensure that skill is the dominant element of success throughout the game.
The R&A and the USGA continue to believe that the retention of a single set of rules for all players of the game, irrespective of ability, is one of golf's greatest strengths. The R&A and the USGA regard the prospect of having permanent separate rules for elite competition as undesirable and have no current plans to create separate equipment rules for highly skilled players.
Golf balls used by the vast majority of highly skilled players today have largely reached the performance limits for initial velocity and overall distance which have been part of the Rules since 1976. The governing bodies believe that golf balls, when hit by highly skilled golfers, should not of themselves fly significantly further than they do today. In the current circumstances, the R&A and the USGA are not advocating that the Rules relating to golf ball specifications be changed other than to modernize test methods.
The R&A and the USGA believe, however, that any further significant increases in hitting distances at the highest level are undesirable. Whether these increases in distance emanate from advancing equipment technology, greater athleticism of players, improved player coaching, golf course conditioning or a combination of these or other factors, they will have the impact of seriously reducing the challenge of the game. The consequential lengthening or toughening of courses would be costly or impossible and would have a negative effect on increasingly important environmental and ecological issues. Pace of play would be slowed and playing costs would increase.
The R&A and the USGA will consider all of these factors contributing to distance on a regular basis. Should such a situation of meaningful increases in distances arise, the R&A and the USGA would feel it immediately necessary to seek ways of protecting the game.
In determining any future amendments to the Rules, or to associated procedures which may from time to time prove necessary, the R&A and the USGA will continue their respective policies of consultation with interested parties, including the use of notice and comment procedures, and will take account of the views expressed. The achievement and maintenance of worldwide uniformity in equipment rules through close coordination between the R&A and the USGA is a clear priority.
The R&A and the USGA are concerned that, on an increasing number of occasions, new products are being developed and marketed which potentially run counter to the principles expressed in this statement. These product launches, without prior consultation with the governing bodies, can lead to considerable difficulties in formulating appropriate equipment rules and to undesirable conflicts between manufacturers and rule makers. The R&A and the USGA intend to bring forward proposals designed to improve procedures for the approval of new products.
The R&A and the USGA believe that the principles stated in this document will, when carefully applied, serve the best interests of the game of golf.
-
Note that heretofore, in any statement of principles involving I&B rules and regulations that the rules making bodies stated that it was basically only the effects of technology that they were interested in monitoring and contolling and not "skill" (athleticism)!
But now it appears they may be interested in monitoring and controlling all aspects of distance production--INCLUDING "skill" (athleticism)!!
This, to me anyway, would signify a remarkable change in principles! This may signify they may now be getting ready to attempt to halt distance increase right here for the rest of time!
And you should also note that they explain they're attempting to do this in the name of preservation of the traditions of the game, including, as they say, the playing fields of the game.
Do they fully understand the implication of this "Joint Statement of Principles"? Does this mean that although they may not consider any kind of roll-back on distance from here that this is the point where distance increases stop--no matter what--for the rest of time?
That's what it sounds like to me. But how will they determine all that? How will they test all that? Does this mean in their minds and intended principles that some absolute animal who may be able to swing at 150mph will NOT be able to hit the ball past X yardage that they may determine as the maximum allowable distance limit.
I hope they realize all they're saying or at least implying here because frankly, it sounds remarkable to me.
Maybe this just might be where distance increase ends once and for all!
-
Of Geoff Shackelford (and anyone else critical of the USGA and the R&A), I ask:
Presuming (a large presumption, I know -- but for the sake of discussion, I'm asking you to make it) that the USGA and the R&A were to enforce this JOINT STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES to the letter, what fault(s) do you find with those principles?
-
Dan:
I, for one, would find no fault whatsoever with these Principles or the USGA/R&A if they could and did enforce these principles to the letter.
How could anyone really? Does not this appear to you, from what those Principles are saying or implying, that this might be the end of distance increase?
The Priniciples sound remarkable to me, but of course I, like everyone, will be fascinated to see how they think they can both determine a limit, certainly on "SKILL" (athletecism) and monitor or test it. The inclusion of "SKILL" (athleticism) as something they intend to monitor and control in the future is frankly staggering to me--it's such a departure from what they'e ever tried to do before! That's a huge departure from anything they've ever contemplated heretofore in I&B rules and regs in a ODS context.
While admitting this "Joint Statement of Principles" does not mention a single thing about a rollback of distance limitations from here, and would mean we'd be saddled with the prospect of the occassional 340 yd drive, at the very least a cap on distance from here should be extremely workable, all things considered, and if acheived should mean architecture (most anyway) should be safe from the eternal cycle of redesign in the name of lenghtening to continually accomodate increased distance!
I think, in principle or theory anyway, this is a remarkable "Joint Statement of Principles" Now let's see how they plan to put it into effect or when!
-
Dan:
There's a lot of implication in that statement if one reads carefully enough.
In the one paragraph when they talk about all the things they plan to monitor and control in the name of limiting future distance increases here's one that sure might make me nervous;
"Whether these increases in distance emanate from advancing equipment technology, greater athleticism of players, improved player coaching, GOLF COURSE CONDITONING or a combination of these or other factors,......"
What about that mention of 'golf course conditioning"? What the hell is that supposed to mean---that they're going to recommend that courses should turn the water on all over the world and soften playing conditions up so the ball won't travel farther along the ground??
Frankly, that's one facet of their new comprehensive principles I just might recommend they remove from this joint statement!
-
"The R&A and the USGA will consider all of these factors contributing to distance on a regular basis. Should such a situation of meaningful increases in distances arise, the R&A and the USGA would feel it immediately necessary to seek ways of protecting the game."
This paragraph, if I'm reading its implication correctly, would seem to be the warning shot that if anything happens in the way of distance increase in the future from manufacturers, players, course conditioning, whatever, that this is the context for some future rollbacks.
Of course that word "meaningful" might be one that will come back to haunt us all! When they get into defining what exactly this remarkable new apparent ODS really is maybe they'd better exactly define what they mean by "meaningful increases in distances"!
Could this mean that while they recognize that manufacturers will always come down the line with new equipment that they can't forsee or imagine, much less stop before it's R&Ded and possibly in the manufacturing pipeline that this warning means that if it involves "meaningful increases in distances"--involving exactly defined limitations of course that this is the R&A/USGA's warning and excuse or reason to either make it automatically non-conforming or to roll it back?
Carefully defined, "meaningful increases in distances" could be something any lawyer or even judge could point to in the event of a lawsuit from a manufacturer!
From what I've seen I think they should deem both Hank and Trip Kuehne "non-conforming" right now. Of course their sister could continue to play. ;)
-
Tom
All that the USGA/R&A statement says to me is:
1. We're going to "draw a line in the sand" and not allow any significant increases in distance
2. We understand that lines drawn in the sand are prone to shifting, through wind, tide, Wally Uhlien/Hank Kuehne and/or whatever/whomever, so we reserve our right to change our mind as to what constitutes that "line."
3. We don't want, ourselves, to have any sort of double standards
To me it's an attempt (and a pretty well reasoned one) to play Cnut and try to hold back the tide. It is not, however, anything that is going to bring Merion (say) back into the Open rota. If we stop where we are now, we are still going to need those 7500 yard courses to provide "tests of golf" for the elite players, by most people's standards.
One thing it does NOT do (nor could it do) is stop ANGC from introducing their own "tournament" ball. All the USGA could do if that were to happen (and then only if that tournament ball were "non-conforming) would be to not allow the amateurs who play in the Masters to post their scores............
-
Rich:
Why would the USGA be concerned about deeming an ANGC ball (with posting for handicap purposes or not) non-conforming? Generally the USGA is concerned about balls above the ODS line not below it.
"One thing it does NOT do (nor could it do) is stop ANGC from introducing their own "tournament" ball."
Oh really? Well, it seems quite probable that they just have!
-
Tom
If they did so, it was under the table in some sort of backroom deal and not through any Rules making power that they have. They have no such power to stop ANGC from doing whatver they want to in their lil' ole' Invitational tournament each year. Others seem to have been saying differently. That's all I wanted to clarify.
-
Rich:
Stop yakking about some nefarious backroom deals. Hootie, Vickers and some of those other influential men can do whatever they want to do but as I've been saying for years the entire USGA and its B&I rules and regs are built on VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE--it's always been that way. People follow them because they want to not because they absolutely have to--in the sense that if they don't the USGA is going to throw some law book at them--because they ain't got one!
Did it ever occur to you that it's possible that Hootie and the Boys may have given up on their ANGC ball idea because they may have been given some kind of quid pro quo? Do you think some of that "quid" just may be found in that new R&A/USGA Joint Statement of Principles" printed in this thread above?
-
Tom
Nope.
"Quid pro quo" is just a fancy way of saying "backroom deal" IMHO. From what you have reported and implied, I'd say the USGA/R&A got Augusta and the "competition ball" issue (their apparent opposition to which I find quaint but flawed) off their backs and Hootie got a deal which means he's probably not going to have to make any more land swaps to get new Championship tee sites for his course. Perhaps a win/win for the blazered juntas, but for the rest of us and particularly the courses we love...........??????
-
Tim Weiman: Your opinion and our observations concur. 95% of our customers are more than challenged playing the regular men's tees at 6200-6400 yards. The customer is looking for the following to become a regualr repeat customer (golfer):
1. Availability of a reasonable tee time.
2. Friendly customer service.
3. Good course conditions (chiefly tees and greens in superior condition. They will tolerate something less than perfection in the fairways.)
4. The ability to play tee to green in "regulation" - drive and approach on a par 4 and on in 3 with a par 5. Greens can be quick or have contouring. This customer will tolerate 3 putting if they reach in regulation.
5. Feeling of value for their money, which is the combination of the above and final score. If the customer has an enjoyable experience and ultimately scores well, he/she will be a repeat customer. Most of our customers are challenged to break 90 and many will only break 100 on their best days, but they are loyal to their clubs as they receive value for their dollar.
6. These customers are the majority of the consumers purchasing much of this new equipment. It is our observation the only thing it has helped is the equipment manufacturers. In playing, you would not believe where many of the $60/dozen balls are found (I am generally looking for one of my guests wayward shots, not one of mine.).
If the game and operators focussed on the above 6 observations, the game would doing a better service to retaning the customer base it currently has and perhaps growing it.
-
TEPaul,
So it would seem that if ANGC chose to make and require use of such a ball in the Masters tournament that they might be going outside the USGA/R&A purview if they did that. Is that what stopped them?
I don't think that would be the case at all.
If ANGC chose to "adopt" a competition ball, the chances are that they adopt a USGA conforming ball, vintage 1970-1980-1990.
Manufacturers introduce new balls all the time, submiting them to the USGA for approval.
If ANGC adopted a pre-approved ball proto-type, I see no conflicts with the USGA and ANGC and their new/old competition ball.
It would appear to be the simplest of solutions
-
So Rich, you're then saying that if the R&A/USGA held distance to the present level for the rest of time that's not good enough for you and that you think they should roll back distance limtitations from where we are right now and hold it under our present limit for the rest of time? Well, that's certainly one way of looking at it.
Pat:
I do see your point. However, are you saying if an ANGC type ball that presumably would have specs involving distance limitation rollback of X percent (perhaps something like 10%) actually became used generally in competition across America and perhaps other recreational play prevalently that the USGA should not be concerned about that because a ball below the established ODS limits shouldn't really be of concern? Is that what you're saying?
I guess I could see that scenario. But what would you make of it's effects on handicapping since present ODS limitation balls would still be used? A 10% rollback on a 250yd drive, for instance, would be 25 yds. And extrapolate that through a player's round. Is that something you think should not be reflected in handicapping? If you think, though, that a rollback that significant should be reflected in handicapping, then, in effect, the R&A/USGA are into a de facto situation of two sets of I&B standards--at least in the area of handicapping which is a pretty significant area in the world of golf.
-
"Tom
Nope.
"Quid pro quo" is just a fancy way of saying "backroom deal" IMHO. From what you have reported and implied, I'd say the USGA/R&A got Augusta and the "competition ball" issue (their apparent opposition to which I find quaint but flawed) off their backs and Hootie got a deal which means he's probably not going to have to make any more land swaps to get new Championship tee sites for his course. Perhaps a win/win for the blazered juntas, but for the rest of us and particularly the courses we love...........??????
Rich;
You do have a negative and doomish way of looking at most things, don't you?
Perhaps before getting too pessimistic on the USGA you should review some of the stuff the R&A did in the last few years or hie on over to see some of the R&A board at TOC. I spent a few days with a bunch of them last week and they are truly delightful people but I do wonder about their initiative here. It might do you good to review their previous COR stance too until the rift was finally mended.
You do know, don't you, that they denied that anything was there on the COR issue, for instance?
I swear sometimes I wonder if the R&A didn't think "spring-like effect" was just some fat kid jumping on a trampoline and that COR was maybe some sort of resuscitation procedure on a golf course!
-
Dan,
The principles sound great, except that all of the "would" and "will" topics have already occurred and done damage. There are also some interesting ideas expressed that run counter to their actions and philosophy as stated by the Executive Director and recent presidents. Frank Hannigan's July column in the Scotsman still focuses on the one problem that really will be tough to overcome.
Hannigan: "Buried deep in the USGA spin job is the news that, no matter what, no ball currently approved by the USGA and R&A will be struck from the list. Nothing will happen."
The situation we are in now has fundamentally altered the way golf is played on the competitive level and of course, the companies are delighted because the change is seeping into the recreational game. The equipment is no longer simply a means to demonstrate skill. Having the most up-to-date and well-matched combination is as important as skill. The talk each week is not how a guy is playing, but how he's changed to a new driver and feels really good about his chances. The NASCARization of golf. But even NASCAR wouldn't redo all of their tracks to accomodate a new Chevy engine, or continue to let accidents happen with speeds created by the engine that are just too far out of control for their current drivers and tracks to handle. Yet the USGA is saying, we won't let it go any further than this, while not addressing what they've already let happen (The new ball test does not appear to be as efficient or comprehensive as the Frank Thomas "optimization" test that would have legitimately enforced the concept put forth in the statement of principle).
The USGA and R&A did not see this transition to equipment dominance in the sport even though it happened over several years, and even though power sucked the life right out of tennis. The USGA's late Golf Journal even published comments from Dick Rugge acknowledging the tennis-power-20 million decline in participation example.
I still wonder if much of this comes down to a philosophic conflict. Many on the folks involved here are simply so pro-business and so anti-regulation in other business arenas, that they are living in fear of possibly impacting someone's bottom line. That's a problem if you are a regulatory agency trying to balance an equation for the overall good. And also a problem for people like me who subscribe to the point of view that the "bottom-line" is enhanced by a sport rewarding all-around skill, a sport that can be played in a reasonable amount of time and at a fair cost. Those are all elements affected by having allowed technology and corporations to have too much influence. Oddly, bottom lines are hurting even though they've gotten their way.
Tom,
The course conditioning line is a Titleist mantra in all of its press releases sent out to claim distance increases are not harmful and are not just caused by the ball. The USGA and folks at some of the bigger publications repeat the mantra a little too often for comfort (see John Antonini's comments in this week's Golf World, yet another example of using high scores to measure the character and quality of the golf played).
Have courses ever been softer in the history of the sport? No. And yet somehow they are playing shorter because of conditioning?
I suspect the course conditioning comment was meant to relate to improved scoring, not distance.
This kind of misstatement is yet another example of why the current USGA regime is failing the sport. They are either buying into manufacturer spin, not very aware of what is going on, extremely conflicted in presenting a unified position that genuine respects tradition, or they are spending too much time looking for ways to deflect blame instead of solving problems.
And if ANGC were to have adopted a "Masters" ball, it would have been an embarrassment to the USGA even though Hannigan's "local rule" concept makes it all SO simple and logical. Considering how many USGA folks are now influential members of ANGC, it's not a surprise the idea was dropped. Plus, it sounds like they're having too much fun changing the fixing that lousy old wide, non-penal design!
Geoff
-
TEPaul,
Let's suppose that ANGC adopted a ball with performance characteristics similar to balls circa 1980, to be their competition ball, the only ball approved for play in The Masters.
The USGA could then adopt that ball as their competition ball for all USGA competitions.
All regional, state and local golf associations could then adopt that ball as their competition ball.
Lastly, Individual clubs could then adopt that ball as their competition ball.
Golfers who play in competitions would gravitate toward playing the competition ball all of the time. I think that an almost osmotic effect would cause many non-tournament golfers to use the ball as well.
You may recall, a number of years ago, a company was marketing a super-ball, a non-approved, high performance ball, and that other companies were advertising, the "ball" that the USGA doesn't want you to play.
If a golfer was caught using a ball such as this for "friendly" games, he was ostracized. I suspect, that over time, the same ostracization would occur.
I believe that the above scenario is the simplest, straightest, least legal path to returning "distance" to reasonable levels.
Just this past weekend, several good players that I met, including some who enjoy the power game, were indicating that something has to be done about distance.
ANGC could return the game to the intended playing fields.
-
Tom
If you remember the various "competition ball" threads that we have had for the past 3 years, the logic is as follows:
1. ANGC requires the "competition" ball as a local rule in the Masters Tournament (it's probably something like a Titleist Professional--fully "legal" but 1980's technology.)
2. Because of the publicity, both Joe Public and elite players give the "new" ball a try
3. Pros, in the month or so leading up to Augusta, try out the "new" ball too, and maybe play it at some of the Mar-April tournaments.
4. The experiment "works" and we have a great Master's with some of the old design features coming back into play.
5. Other Tour events adopt the "local" rule. Some eleite amateur evengts (The Crump?) adopt it too
6. Over time a shangri-la emerges whereby most tournament golf is played with unerperforming (but fully conforming) bals (and maybe equipment, too) whilst Joe Public is free to use anything that it legal today (e.g. Sept. 2003). The arms race is over and golf and its playing fields are the winners.
It could happen, but it would take some vision, some leadership and some cojones, which leaves me pessimistic about the whole scenario....... :(
-
I knew my original comments would incite some responses but allow me to conclude by saying this -
Thank you for all the well-informed debate. I realize that most would not agree with everything I was saying (ands let me re-state that I never meant anything personally to Geoff). In a short final summation from my point of view -
- its too early to tell if the RTR was a mistake or not. If they lose money it was a definite mistake. If they break even or make money. live and learn. The original idea of a museum in NYC is good (even if I love Golf House the way it is). The poster who said there are bigger fish to fry is correct - this is a small issue in the grand scheme.
- something must be done about distance but I am still not sure what the best course of action is - I trust the USGA to determine this course.
- I will wait until the end of the year to pass judgement on Golf Journal. I miss it and right now if asked would agree that this was a dumb move. But I will wait until the championship-summary book is distributed to decide.
- I trust and believe in David Fay. He has presided over some explosive growth as well as overseen an expansion in the foundation. I think Frank Hannigan is a curmudgeon and is taking way too many shots at his successor to have credibility. Just once, Frank could say "Boy they got it right on that one," and I would buy into what he is saying a little more.
Geoff - I appreciate your responses especially. Come up to NorCal and look me up at the NCGA offices. Would love to play with you.
-
Scott:
With all due respect, I think you may be too close to some of the individuals within the USGA. Sometimes personal connections preclude us from being able to accurately assess performance within an organization.
I also think that the "concern" about manufacturer's lawsuits, etc., that's been alleged is a great excuse for inaction on the part of the USGA. Think about it, Scott, all that talk actually serves manufacturers because if lawsuits are ever filed, tell me that Plaintiff Attys won't cite knowledge of internal discussions within the USGA during which USGA officials "questioned" their right to limit manufacturer's R&D activities to create clubs/balls which generate greater distance, etc., The more an individual or group questions their legal right to do something, the more they ultimately restrict their right to do something.
This avoidance has lead the USGA down the road of screwing around with the architecture of way too many golf courses.
IMHO, the USGA has been remiss if they haven't sought input from persons who have expressed criticism of their management style, activities, etc., Not that they have to accept criticism as gospel, but reviewing criticism honestly, helps all organizations grow and improve and stay on their mission. Exclusive belief in your own press will always get you in trouble. :o
-
Well said, Margaret
Your last sentence brings nostalgic tears to my eyes in rememberance of all the strategy consulting work I have done with similarly arrogant clients. One of my old partners used to call it: "Smoking their own exhaust."
-
The scenarios put forth by Patrick and Darren are attractive and logical. Unfortunately, the world is often less logical as events play out. So, here's an alternative scenario:
1. ANGC adopts a competition ball, comparable to the Tour Balata.
2. We find that better athletes, vastly better swing mechanics, perfectly fitted and customized equipment, and perfect course conditions combine to make the scoring for the tournament exactly the same as it had been for the past several years.
3. Other agencies, like the PGA Tour, jump on the bandwagon too quickly, only to confirm that the ball doesn't solve ALL problems at one fell swoop.
4. "Ordinary" players, finding the game to be less fun now because of the choice between non-complying balls and shorter, crookedy balls that cut and cost more, lose interest in either
a. the Rules of Golf and/or the USGA
b. golf
I'm not sure why this scenario is any less plausible than the others.
-
I don't really think the USGA is afraid of lawsuits by the manufacturers. They were correct in building a war chest to protect themselves in cas of them, but fear isn't the factor. When Buzz Taylor launched his attack on clubs at Olympic in 1998, the screams were loud enough that many people around the USGA felt that it would be better to work with the manufacturers than just dictate to them. Because of this, they have tried for concensus. They also are trying to work in a way that doesn't make something that they've previously approved illegal. They are thinking about Joe Golfer who went and plunked down $500 for a driver as much as they are thinking about lawsuits.
For all of those who want the ball that goes a shorter distance, consider that 4 of the 5 guys I played with this weekend hit their driver shorter than I hit my 3-iron (maybe 225 yards). They don't want a ball that goes a shorter distance.
6800 yards is long enough for 95% of the golfers. The problem is that some people with more money than brains keep trying to build courses for the other 5% and that is what is raising the cost of golf. My home course is "only" 6650 from the tips (par 70), but very few players play them, preferring the 6200 yard tees which are what we use for normal men's club play.
-
Rich:
Thanks for your kind words.
Smoking their own exhaust. :D
Rich, you've made my day! I love that line!
I don't know you and I obviously don't know your partner; however, I will think of both of you whenever I think of or use that line! That's terrific! :-*
-
And the more PERSONAL the exhaust one pictures, the better that line gets!
-
And continuing from my previous post:
Assume for a moment that it IS just the ball (a very shaky assumption):
I cannot for the life of me understand why the USGA is the primary bad guy here for simply continuing to enforce the exact standards that they have had in place for nearly 30 years! Nobody complained about the standards before, and now the people who are complaining (yeah, YOU!) are doing so while using the latest equipment, the exact balls that you bitch about, and complaining after the round if the course conditions aren't perfect. In effect, you are asking the USGA to save you from yourself! The USGA is simply a convenient, slow-moving target.
Furthermore, why isn't the Tour the main culprit in all of this? The influence of the Tour is such that in EVERY club tournament that I play in, the pro feels the need to inform the players that the "one-ball" rule is not in effect! There's a quote from Deane Beman early in this thread in which he accuses the USGA of dropping the ball. What a flaming hypocrite! Why don't he and Finchem get the lion's share of the blame in all of this, since it is their tournaments and their players that all the fuss is about?
-
AG Crockett,
# 2 in your premise is flawed, hence the sequential conclusion is flawed.
I believe, as a condition of the settlement of the Ping law suit that the PGA is prohibited from being involvled in equipment issues.
-
Thanks to you, too, Margaret (and Dan)
The BBC is just now running a series presenting modern day versions of the Canterbury Tales. The first one shown was "The Miller's Tale" which, if you remember your Middle English classes, gives a whole different meaning to my old business partner's catch phrase...........
-
JV:
I don't really think the USGA is afraid of lawsuits by the manufacturers. They were correct in building a war chest to protect themselves in cas of them, but fear isn't the factor...in 1998, the screams were loud enough that many people around the USGA felt that it would be better to work with the manufacturers than just dictate to them. Because of this, they have tried for concensus. They also are trying to work in a way that doesn't make something that they've previously approved illegal. They are thinking about Joe Golfer who went and plunked down $500 for a driver as much as they are thinking about lawsuits...
With all due respect trying, "...for consensus..." although it may sound like the mature, professional approach, isn't always appropriate. There are also times that if it were appropriate as an initial step, when concensus fails to yield results, then it must be discarded.
Maybe "fear" is too strong a word; however, your remark indicates that ego more than likely is a big driver. (Pun not intended!) ::)
Think about it, the FDA has reversed, on occasion, its approvals on some prescription drugs. That's life...gain additional information, gain a different perspective, whatever precipitates the change, a decision is made to eat crow, swallow pride, whatever...
"Joe Golfer" sounds more like an excuse for inaction because some "Joe Golfers" choose now to use equipment that is illegal for tournaments/championships.
Clearly, I have neither the knowledge nor insight that you have about golf or the USGA, but in reading your post, I was instantly struck with the notion that the USGA has "sold" a "cop out" to appear to be a reasoned approach to the challenge they face. To me it sounds like avoidance, but that's only a gut reaction. :-\
-
Mr. Crockett,
Isn't it about time that we all moved beyond the fiction that the last decade's incredible increases in distance have had more to do with the work ethic of the athletes than the equipment?
You also comment that the USGA shouldn't take all the blame for what has happened over the past decade. Personally I am less concerned with who should take the blame and more concerned with who is in a position to fix what has gone wrong.
And the USGA is the only organization in the position to fix this mess. We need different rules, and the USGA makes the rules. Where else could we turn? Begging the manufacturers is pointless . . . the Tour doesnt govern my play . . . Joe Golfer isnt a leader, but instead will follow the lead of the USGA (as the ERC situation demonstrated.) So we are left with the USGA.
-
Patrick,
I stand corrected. I should have said "nearly" the same, rather than "exactly." Thanks for pointing that out. I think the rest of the sequence then holds up, especially since we're on Fantasy Island anyway.
If the Tour can't legislate a ball as a result of the Ping suit, are you saying that the world will be a better place if a competition ball is used at Augusta, in USGA events, by amateurs in casual rounds, BUT NOT ON THE PGA TOUR? Isn't that where the problem is anyway? Or maybe, despite millions of dollars at stake, those guys will decide to play a 1980 ball for the good of the game, like the rest of us will be doing...
What am I missing?
-
MargaretC:
Your comments to Scott Seward are typical of all your posts. Lots of common sense and a pleasure to read!
At best, the USGA is quilty of inaction and/or incompetence. More likely, they have seriously let down the average golfer by allowing the golf technology arms race to get out of control.
It is time for action, not excuses. Runaway technology just makes the game more expensive. Who needs that? Real golfers want to PLAY more not PAY more.
If Scott Seward thinks the USGA is so great, I'm wondering why they aren't alarmed by the misleading nature of Titleist ads mocking golf architects for not wanting to lengthen golf courses. Where is the evidence for this nonsense? Does a place like Whistling Straits - all 7,700 yards - suggest leading architects aren't willing to build longer courses?
Of course not. What I can't understand is how anyone like Scott can defend the USGA's failure to expose the basic flaw in the entire golf technology arms race mentality: that it only raises the cost of playing the game. It doesn't make it better.
Dave Moriarty:
I agree with your suggestion that the USGA should be embracing Geoff Shackelford. Geoff was kind enough to share a draft of his forthcoming book "The Future of Golf". Obviously, I don't want to steal Geoff's thunder and provide details on the book. But, I will say a couple things
"The Future of Golf" appears to be the first serious attempt to address what plagues the modern game of golf, including the USGA's failure to address the technology issue. It should be mandatory reading for every Green Committee and USGA member. Further, I think David Fay should reach out in a statesmen like manner and embrace Geoff and the book. Your suggestion of the USGA sponsoring a speaking tour to promote Geoff's work (and this book) is right on. It is exactly what Fay and the USGA should do.
-
AG Crockett,
TEPaul is more versed in the Ping lawsuit restrictions on the PGA, but, I believe that they are prohibited from being involved in equipment issues. I'm not clear on whether they can legislate the adoption of a "competition ball" that exists under USGA guidelines. I would imagine that if the USGA adopted the "ANGC" ball, that the PGA tour, playing under USGA rules, could adopt that ball.
But, even if they can't, they're not playing the same ball as we are, today.
If they can adopt the "ANGC" ball, great, if they can't, there are those that say, "let the tour play their own tour ball" that meets current USGA specs.
Before we go further we should know and understand the constraints of the Ping lawsuit on the PGA.
TEPaul, where are you when your needed ?
-
"I believe, as a condition of the settlement of the Ping law suit that the PGA is prohibited from being involvled in equipment issues."
Pat:
The PGA Tour is not exactly prohibited from entering into the world of I&B rules and regulations on their own by the PING/PGA tour lawsuit settlement. What happened in that settlement was a five member committee was set up (which still exists) that the PGA Tour has to go to under the PING/PGA suit settlement and present reasons why they wish to enter I&B rules and regs on their own. That committee would apparently then review the reasons and make their own independent recommedation to the PGA Tour--the recommendation then apparently going to the PGA Tour Policy Review board which is made up of a series of tour players.
It was that very committee that I had in mind to regenerate (they're supposed to be made up of the definition of "disinterested" parties) and use for the purpose of bringing all the entities of golf together in a public forum (a convocation) to publicly discuss this distance problem now and in the future and help resolve it. I had in mind to chair the committee--George Bush Sr!
And furthermore Pat, if it ever came to regenerating that committee as an honest broker, mediator, whatever you might want to call them amongst the interested parties of golf (all the worlds tours, the architects (ASGCA and other architect organizations), manufacturers, regional associaiton reps, whomever else needs or wants to be represented and the time then came to ask Pres. Geo Bush Sr to chair the committee I'd probably ask that man that knows him well and who can frankly do anything that needs to be done in the entire world of golf and architecture--that one humble, brilliant, all encompassing man from Austin Texas--one Gentle BEN CRENSHAW!!!
-
One last thing Pat:
If that time comes and BEN does go to see his friend Pres Geo Bush Sr to ask him to chair this important mediating committee it's just fine with me, in the interest on non BIAS and Non-DOUBLE STANDARD if Ben asks TOM FAZIO if he wants to tag along!
That's OK with me provided TOMF sits quietly in a corner and doesn't say a word so we needn't worry about him either contrdicting himself or this entire important issue!! ;)
-
At best, the USGA is quilty of inaction and/or incompetence. More likely, they have seriously let down the average golfer by allowing the golf technology arms race to get out of control.
Tim, the average golfer is happy to be hitting the ball a little further. As such, I don't think they are being let down by the USGA.
The only golfers who are really gaining any "unfair" advantage from the technology are the professionals and higher level amateurs and they are such a small group I'm not concerned with them. What I am concerned with in regards to this are stupid owners/clubs that choose to chase that egotistic pleasure of having the pros play their courses by building longer and longer courses when most golfers don't need or want them or the cost of them.
Margaret, the FDA reverses itself on life and death issues. While I know that many on this forum consider golf to be a life and death issue, it isn't.
Very few Joe Golfers play "illegal" equipment today. But, if you roll the ball back, a lot more might. That might be what the USGA fears more than a lawsuits.
Lets say the USGA decides to roll the ball back and the current crop of balls becomes "illegal". Suppose that Calloway and Titleist choose to continue to make and sell them because that is what their customers want. People will continue to buy them because they don't want to give up that extra yardage (kind of like heroin sometimes isn't it? )
The only solution to me would be a competition ball which could be dictated at higher levels of play. Some at the USGA are against that because they don't want "separate rules" for the pros and the rest of us. I think they are wrong in that regard and in past discussions of this topic, I have proposed a way that players could choose which ball to play and still post scores for handicaps and have competitions.
I look forward to reading Geoff's book. I agree with a lot of what he says and my only hope is that he offers solutions rather than just pointing fingers at the USGA and people there, which was my original criticism in this thread.
-
Geoff,
You are a talented writer, and much better at articulating your ideas than I. However, I find your response to my questions to be vague.
One more question,
Do you actually believe the USGA is less autocratic today than it was 15-20 years ago?
-
JohnV:
I think the average golfer is being hurt because the cost of pursuing absolute length is being obscured. We need to do a far better job explaining to people that when it comes to length "relative" length matters not absolute length.
John, if you can hit longer drives than I can, you deserve to be rewarded. But, a 300 yard drive is no better than a 275 drive if technology rather than skill is behind the difference.
As for Geoff offering solutions, I don't think Geoff is so arrogant as to believe others haven't already pointed to the elephant in the living room. We need to address the technology question and with respect to golf balls I believe there are only two basic solutions: an overall rollback or a competition ball.
Personally I favor the competition ball approach. Moreover, I believe the USGA is living in a dreamworld if they really believe the weekend golfer plays the same game as professional golfers or top ranked amateurs. That simply isn't the case.
No, this issue isn't about somebody coming up with "solutions". It is about leadership and the will to address the problem. Both appear to be lacking at the USGA.
Remember, golfers want to play more not pay more. The trick is to find the right balance of player skill, technology and the the configuration of the playing field to maximize challenge, interest and fun........and do so at the lowest possible cost to people playing the game.
Runaway technology doesn't aid in that cause. The USGA is failing to both admit and to correct the problem.
A competition ball is long overdue.
-
I was just looking thru the Golf Digest Annual from 1969. Popular balls were the Dot, the Red Max, the Titleist balata, and the new solid core Top Flite. (This magazine also had colored sand - pink, yellow, and blue, as the next big trend in golf)
Do any of us actually think that today's balls don't go a lot farther than those of the 1960's? Sure - I love the distance gain, and no design is threatened by my newfound distance. But pros - male and female, have gained tremendous distance that is threatening our game. I know for a fact that my tee shots go a lot longer than they did when I was 20 and playing a Dunlop Blue Max with an Austad maple-laminate driver!
Could golf end up becoming tennis-like, with tennis' huge racquets and overpowering service-dominated game (golf's equivalant would be 350+ yard drives and 150 yard wedges, making par 5's just long par 4's)? I sure don't hope so...
-
The only golfers who are really gaining any "unfair" advantage from the technology are the professionals and higher level amateurs and they are such a small group I'm not concerned with them. What I am concerned with in regards to this are stupid owners/clubs that choose to chase that egotistic pleasure of having the pros play their courses by building longer and longer courses when most golfers don't need or want them or the cost of them.
Margaret, the FDA reverses itself on life and death issues. While I know that many on this forum consider golf to be a life and death issue, it isn't.
Very few Joe Golfers play "illegal" equipment today. But, if you roll the ball back, a lot more might. That might be what the USGA fears more than a lawsuits.
JV:
I'm a physician and I love medicine and golf "almost" as much as I love my husband and family. Oops! Guess I got my "life and death issues" screwed up. :o
Also my error about "Joe Golfer" insofar as I thought that some "JG's" used clubs made by Calloway and other mfgs that were considered "illegal" -- an honest error, but my error none the less.
I do see your point about "rolling back" the ball, etc. However, if the USGA sucked-it-up, took a position and stayed on top of technology, I'm not sure that we'd be in the situation of "rolling back" -- their assessment of approval/disapproval would be more timely.
In terms of the "stupid owners/clubs" who are building longer and longer courses... Agreed, but aren't they following, to some degree, the lead of the USGA who apparently feels the need to "tweak" and otherwise screw around with the architecture of a course prior to hosting a championship?
Please do not take these comments as criticism. I've read many of your posts and respect your extensive knowledge. My perspective is that of a neophyte and from my position, the USGA has missed way too many opportunities to demonstrate leadership.
Another comment about the stupid owners/clubs, thank heavens, Oakmont has strong leadership. I have no idea what, if anything, the USGA has dictated to be changed at Oakmont; however, I do know that the leadership of Oakmont is strong enough that they aren't likely to change features of its course unless its consistent with their master plan.
I can appreciate your lack of concern for the small percentage of Pros, etc. My reluctance in agreement is that too many average golfers see the pro form of golf as being REAL golf. That, IMO, is a travesty because the way pros play golf (flying over courses), virtually disregards much of the architecture's nuances and opportunities for wonderfully strategic golf.
Tim's comment is great about the issue of "relative" Vs "absolute" length. Many women have been saying that for years. ::) :P :-*
-
Thanks to you, too, Margaret (and Dan)
The BBC is just now running a series presenting modern day versions of the Canterbury Tales. The first one shown was "The Miller's Tale" which, if you remember your Middle English classes, gives a whole different meaning to my old business partner's catch phrase...........
Thank you, Rich & Dan, I howled. Be assured, Rich, that I will do my part in perpetuating your former partner's "catch phrase" insofar as I will find the occasion to use it and I intend to share it with physician colleagues -- especially those specializing in GI medicine -- "proctology" among others. :-[ ::) :o
TimW:
Thank you for your kind words.
Sorry for the "misuse" of the "length" issue. Seriously, your point was excellent and well taken. I, however, allowed my "other side" to get the better of me. ???
-
Tim, My only problem with what Geoff is saying is the way he says it sometimes, not the basic argument. I'm sure he has alienated people at the USGA because of his style as opposed to his substance. It is always a lot harder to get your message across when people don't like the way you deliver it.
I believe that the people at the USGA are looking at this issue and considering all the possible ramifications. Because of that, they are slow to react. Being slow to react is not always a bad thing as it allows the solutions to be well thought out and not in constant flux. Also, there is a strong basic desire on their part not to bifurcate the rules. At this point, I happen to disagree with that desire.
Dan, I'm sure the ball goes further than it did in 1969. But, it still doesn't go any further than the Overall Distance Standard allows in the Apples-to-Apples test that has been in use for a long time. But, we aren't using apples anymore, we are using graphite-shafted titanium plated apples and the ball does go a lot further because of that. Well, the USGA is updating the test to use those new apples. At the same time, they are saying that with the new apples the ball can't go as far as it appears is possible. But, they also don't want to take today's balls out of everyone's bags so they won't make any current balls illegal. So, either today's balls don't go the max or there will be some hot balls out there that are legal.
Margaret, no offence taken to anything you or anyone else has said in this discussion.
If the USGA/R&A made one big mistake it was allowing titanium and other hi-tech metal clubs and graphite shafts. Put wood (or even steel) headed clubs with steel shafts in the players hands and they wouldn't come near the same distances.
I agree that Oakmont's leadership is one of the few that has managed the changes well. They kept the primary focus and history of the course at the forefront. Of course, that was easier since Oakmont was always intended to be the meanest and the toughest. Courses that started out with subtlety like Riviera have been hurt badly by bad ownership and bad architectural guidance. I know that Geoff feels that the USGA is largely responsible for that and to some extent they are, but if Mr. Watanabe didn't want the prize so badly nothing would have been done there. If the USGA recommended Fazio's group to do the work, shame on them and shame on Riviera for ignoring the best resource on how to do it right, Geoff Shackleford.
Too many regular golfers see Augusta National as the epitomy of golf course maintenance also.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 ?? ;D ;D ;D
-
Pat:
The USGA's D&O insurance is sufficient.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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. ;)
-
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?
-
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
-
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. . . .
-
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!
-
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.
-
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!
-
Geoff,
What did Frank Hannigan do or say when the metal headed woods made their debut?
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 ;D
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 !
-
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?
-
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 ?
-
Patrick,
If the audience wasn't limited before Golf Journal's demise, it certainly will be now based on reports of a rapidly declining USGA membership base.
Furthermore, lets save the content of Golf Journal debate for another thread and ask another question.
I think most here agree that the biggest problem for the USGA right now is on the communications front. What better platform than Golf Journal to educate devoted and vocal golfers in the sport about technology, architecture, the rules, tradition, etc... But it's gone now and the devoted golfers are also leaving the organization (and have been in droves for 3 years now). This mass departure adds up financially and worse, makes a statement to manufacturers that the USGA has lost many allies in the form of supportive members.
Geoff
-
Pat,
I remember when David Suskind said that! IN fact, it is a famous quote isn't it?
I recently went and saw the Bill Maher HBO show being taped, and it was really interesting because given that it is a show about politics, and that it is taped live with no canned laughter they send a comedian out to prep the audience before hand-giving them candy and making them laugh--you know, little gifts or treats, and laughter. What else is the best way to enjoy life? With fun and laughter!
They also mention how important it is to the show--to make it work--that the audience be into the guests and topics, and to laugh at all the jokes whether you get them or not. All of that hooting and holloring you hear on the program is the audience who have been inspired to do so. So yes, I think your analogy is a good one.
And that was what the Golf Journal was to all USGA members, it was the treat that the USGA provided to encourage membership, and a positive of what their membership meant to them. How sad it had to be a victim of a budget cut.
I myself have heard a great many people complain of what they are now NOT getting in regards to their USGA membership. These are people that don't frequent this website, and are just regular, everyday golfers with minimal interest in the workings of the activity, and they have asked me why, hoping I could tell them a reason why the Golf Journal no longer existed.
So, its like going to the Bill Maher show without being prepped to be excited and loud and laughing at all the jokes, and without the treats.
-
Geoff,
I happened to like "Golf Journal" but, if its distribution was limited, how effective could it be as an educational tool ?
If "Golf Journal" had merely been re-formated, and put on the internet, the new medium, which reaches millions worldwide, that would seem to make it a more effective educational tool, and would have probably increased "circulation" dramatically.
Preserving the content, but shifting the medium for distribution would seem to have been the more prudent decision.
Tommy Naccarato,
So, canned laughter can be produced with man's hands not machines, sounds like we've come full circle on audiences and bunkers ;D
-
Patrick,
You missed my point. A membership got you the magazine. A big membership total and the revenues from that made the USGA strong are akin to a commercial magazine repeating great benefits from a huge PAID circulation because it solidifies their place with advertisers and brings in money from subscribers.
A visit to the Internet site is free. The USGA derives no money from an online site because you don't need to be a member to look at their site. Subscriber services have not proven reliable yet. The USGA had subscribers but now it's losing them at a stunning rate. Will they get them back with a site accessible only to subscribers/members? Doubtful.
From my point of view, why give up on something that could still work financially or from a communications/show of strength point of view, in favor of something unproven, especially when the membership was built around Golf Journal? It was the prime motivation most had for joining and still an effective tool for making the USGA's case, much more effective than a web site.
Geoff
-
Geoff,
I understood your point, and agree with it to a large degree.
However, the USGA could have put "Golf Journal" on the internet, simultaneously with their printed version, until the jury was in, accomodating subscribers with a password for access.
Ignoring the internet wouldn't be prudent either.
-
Patrick,
Now that's a great idea about doing both with a password. Why didn't they think of that?! It would have been a more natural transition and might have kept more members around, though I still contend that for feature articles and photography, there is nothing like a printed publication.
Well, perhaps behind closed doors this was all discussed and perhaps many were against this significant change.
Or could it be that certain folks on the Executive Committee do not have a business relationship with an internet service provider? ;)
Geoff
-
What does Geoff like?
I think Geoff likes for people to examine the game of golf; its history, its direction as communicated by the governing bodies, it's potential greatness and it's creeping demise.
Could he be the Tim Russert of Golf?
-
Shivas:
Question to all of us -- what do you care if other people play with the latest equipment? If you don't like the game with booming 300 yard drives and 185 yard 7 irons, then DON'T PLAY IT! Hit your persimmon and blades. DON'T buy the ProV1x. Play the up tees. . . .
Look, I'm not changing my equipment. I like hitting it far. I like reaching par 5's in 2 and not being petrified by the phrase "451, par 4". But if you feel differently, then it's up to YOU to do something about it, not the USGA. I think the competition ball idea is silly. Either you roll it back for everyone, or you let the pros hit it 320 and score low.
And if you're worried about land costs and maintenance costs, play at a short course. These costs only affect YOU if you play a long course. Lord knows, there are plenty of short courses out there. A buddy of mine just shot 129 at a local muni we grew up on as kids in an event over the weekend. So what? To me, that's great. The course is short, and he tore it up. So what's the problem?
Shivas, this isnt about your game, your distance, your equipment, or where you choose to play. This is about Golf Course Architecture. And, bottom line, the increase in technology is having a very detrimental effect on golf course architecture, both old and new. Our great courses and our contemporary courses are being damaged, and the damage will only worsen if something is not done.
Also, while I agree with you that we all play the same game, we are reaching a point where we are not playing it on the same courses. How can an architect accomodate both a player who drives it 170 and a player who hits it twice as far? What's an architect to do? Build 600 yard par 4s with tee boxes all the way up to the 300 yd marker? Hard to balance the strategic interests on a hole like that.
_________________________
The quote was a screw up on my part. It should read:
"Isnt it about time that we all moved beyond the fiction that the last decade's incredible increases in distance have had more to do with the work ethic of athletes than with the equipment?"
My screw-up.
-
All I'm saying is that the hands that hold the grip of the kryptonite shafted beta ti 400 cc (isn't anybody else a little surprised that golf club sizes are starting to approach what used to be a decent sized motorcycle engine?) driver are HUMAN. The hand that tees up that superball is HUMAN. And these people are making choices. The other thread asks "if they hold the solheim Cup in the forest and nobody is there to see it...". Well, what I'm saying is that if they make drivers balls that let you hit it 500 yards and nobody plays them, then where's the damage? I'm saying that they're only damaged if the player makes them damaged.
And let's just assume that there is damage. Who is responsible for that damage? I lay it at the players' feet, not the manufacturers. Then again, I don't blame Phillip Morris or Seagram's for people's smoke or booze problems, either. ;) That's my point.
No step missed at all.
1. Unfortunately Shivas, most view the game like you do-- We wont give up our big hitting equipment unless and until the big hitting equipment becomes unsanctioned/illegal.
2. The humans building/modifying courses are catering to their customers, who wont let go of the big hitting equipment unless and until the big hitting equipment becomes unsanctioned/illegal.
3. It has nothing to do with blame. I dont care who is at fault. It just doesnt matter. I care about fixing the problem. And the problem won't go away unless and until the big hitting equipment becomes unsanctioned/illegal.
-
or people take responsibility for their actions and -- heaven forbid -- actually act upon their beliefs....?
Shivas your position is a lame cop-out and nothing but a way to never do anything about anything.
-
DMoriarty,
I think you hit on a critical issue,
How can an architect present the same, or similar challenges, to a golfer who hits it 160 and another who hits it 320 ?
Creating different tees doesn't address the totality of the problem, and creating identical features in each golfers drive zone is impractical, and creating the same approach shot is impossible.
The disparity needs to be compressed.
-
Patrick, I never thought I would say this, but we are in total agreement.
I see this distance disparity as the single most damaging consequence of the expanding technology. It is simply becoming impossible for people hitting various lengths to enjoy the same course.
-
"I think you hit on a critical issue,
How can an architect present the same, or similar challenges, to a golfer who hits it 160 and another who hits it 320?"
Patrick;
Why do you make that assumption? How golf architecture relates to various golfers is uniquely different. You really are an architectural egalitarian, aren't you? Is this what inspires your rampant anti-biasism?
-
Shivas, I think you are again mistaking the world of golf for that strange utopia of yours where Lochner is still law and every 8 yr old has a right to sell him/herself into slavery . . .
But back to golf . . .
How are you harmed because somebody ELSE's golf ball goes 320 on a 7700 yard course if you stick to Rustic and play persimmon and balata? How?
I dont care whether I am harmed, I care whether golf course architecture is harmed. Let me draw an analogy.
Carts. When people started riding in carts, golf architecture changed. Some think for the better; I think for the worse.; but there is no question that it changed . . . .
Does it hurt me if others ride in carts? Nope, not immediately. But over time it certainly has changed my options. When I try to find a nice warm vacation spot where my wife can sit on the beach and I can walk 36, I come up empty more often than not. The courses dont allow walking, and for good reason.
And, it changes peoples' attitude toward golf. They get so used to riding in carts that they forget they can walk. Played in a skins game yesterday with a young pro who decided to walk after seeing that I was walking. It had been so long that he had forgotten what a joy it was. Like his first taste of ice cream . . .
The more the attitude changes, the less architecture there is for us hoofers. So it does matter. Same thing with distance.
-
There is a shortage of quality 6500 yard courses which dont want to get longer or otherwise trick themselves up to control distance.
NO, not the same thing at all. Carts changed architecture. Fine. But they changed it on NEW courses and courses that CHOSE to adapt to them.
This statement is completely pointless, unless I am really missing something. Length changes NEW courses and courses which CHOOSE to modify.
You started out talking about how we all play the same game. But now you have us playing different courses of different lengths with different equipment and different shots. Hardly the same game. What gives?
-
We vote and ratify golf course success with our wallets but I've never seen a ballot with a "Comment" section. Thus, here we are.
"We've gone from government by the corrupt few to government by the ignorant masses." some old guy said it 200+ years ago when America was formed.
"Novus ordo seclorum"
Geoff, keep the lighthouse candle burning.
-
TEPaul,
Why do you make that assumption? How golf architecture relates to various golfers is uniquely different. You really are an architectural egalitarian, aren't you? Is this what inspires your rampant anti-biasism?
Perhaps a good example would be the 1st hole at NGLA and the alternate methods of play envisioned by CBM.
Do you really believe that he designed that hole as a par 3 ?
Do you really believe that he designed # 2 as a par 3 ?
Did you know that the green at # 11 was almost driven recently, with the tee shot carrying the road. Do you think he designed that hole as a par 3 ?
What about # 14 and # 17, do you feel he designed those holes as par 3's ?
That's what they are all becoming.
I played in a member guest recently with a young man, probably mid to late thirties, possibly early 40's, who was a member of Winged Foot. He hit shots, never dreamed of by the likes of Ben Hogan, Sam Snead, Billy Casper, Arnold Palmer, and Jack Nicklaus He wasn't bigger or stronger then George Bayer, Mike Souchak or Frank Stranahan, but he hit it in a manner that none of them ever dreamed of.
When an individual hits a driver and a five iron on a 530 yard par 5, he evades all of the features that the architect intended for him to encounter, and that is where you are missing the point. The features that the architect intended for the golfer to confront are being ignored, aerially avoided.
So how do you design a course today, for that player, and a 24 handicap who hits it 160 yards ?
The dilema is real and the disparity needs to be compressed.
-
Shivas,
You refuse to acknowledge that it is all quite a bit more interactive than you describe. My choices are influenced by what kinds of courses are built and maintained, and the kind of courses that are built and maintained are influenced by the choices that people make. When there is a major chance such as a 30 yds increase in distance over a short time, courses adjust and golf architecture is permanantly changed, thus I have different choices.
I dont just say that architecture is defacto ruined by technology, I tell you how it is ruined-- the Distance Disparity.
As for your Posner mumbo jumbo, you are forgetting something very important: GOLF IS A GAME. It has rules, which are supposed to make the game more enjoyable for those who play. When those rules are out of whack they should be changed. This just aint market economics and you have no inaleinable right to play with a 400 dollar kryptonite rocket launcher.
If you are called for traveling in basketball to you argue that the tyrrany of the referrees has just ruined the game?
As for your intervening-superceding cause, you again return to the blame game. I only want to fix the problem. And you must have your head very deep in a shiny crushed marble bunker to deny that there is a problem.
I sense that your fear is that the great old courses will be ruined. I say that if they are not altered, they are not ruined.
Jeez Shivas, what great courses arent being altered??
-
David & Shivas:
Are you two guys friends? I'm just asking because you two get on each other sometimes like two guys called Paul and Mucci! I think I remember reading that you guys play golf together or have but the way it sounds sometimes I wouldn't be surprised to see DMoriarty chased Shivas down a fairway wielding a 2 iron!
-
"Seriously, what you're saying is just another version of the classic "I don't trust the people to make their own decisions so I'll just make them for them because I know better than they do what's good for them" argument that gets the left in trouble every time."
Go for it Shivas--go for it man! Don't let that left wing Californian up for air. Sen Joe McCarthy should've cleaned all those pinko commies outta Hollywood when he had the chance! I expect to see you chasing Moriarty down the fairway with a 2 iron! ;)
-
I expect to see you chasing Moriarty down the fairway with a 2 iron! ;)
Much more likely some 400-c.c. driver, don't you think?
2-irons are for pussies!
-
"Much more likely some 400-c.c. driver, don't you think?
2-irons are for pussies!"
Sorry Dan, but it's the 400cc drivers that're for pussies--and rich, insecure pussies that unsure of their manhood at that.
-
TEP: yes we are. We're just Irish! ;D
Hell- I thought it was because you are both LAWYERS ;D
-
Shivas.
Sound and fury . . . . And yet another complex issue that you can neatly reduce to black and white, left and right. You are a one trick pony in a two trick rodeo.
But now that you've agitated yourself into a heavy lather, why dont you head back to the barn and cool down. Maybe try to look past your pointless politicization to the actual issues at hand.
. . . I'm NOT buying this notion that the great old courses are destroyed by technology. They're destroyed only in the minds of people who refuse to stand up to technology in concert with their beliefs.
Shivas, you are completely missing the point, yet again. I will try to type slowly this time so maybe you can follow along.
Classic courses aren't destroyed "in the minds of people," they are destroyed by green committees, architects, sanctioning bodies, architects, shapers, and construction crews. I am not talking about some theoretical, metaphysical destruction-- architecture lessened because it doesnt play like it used to. I am talking about actual in-the-dirt alterations-- lengthening, narrowing, smoothing, growing, moving, flattening-- all because decision-makers feel like what they have is no longer relevant.
As for your pat Libertarian rant, I've heard it all before. Let me remind you: The USGA governs golf through a rather elaborate set of rules. These rules currently include limitations on clubs, balls, and distance. If you dont want the USGA to have control over your balls, clubs, or game, then go ahead and be a rebel, play by your own rules. Play with a bazooka for all I care. But I get a feeling that you are willing to live with the USGA telling you what to do when it comes to equipment.
All I am saying is that the USGA's rules don't accomplish what they should be accomplishing, and that they should be altered so they do. If you dont think golf needs rules, go after the USGA, or ignore them. Dont attack me for trying to get them to tweak their already existing rules.
___________________
To briefly address the rest:
What is the problem? The problem is that our great courses are being ruined. The problem is that it is becoming increasingly more difficult to build and maintain courses which can be enjoyed by a variety of players. The problem is that golf takes too long and costs too much. The problem is that courses are becoming too long for many to walk. The problem is that golf cannot afford to completely rebuild all of our courses every couple of decades.
Who is hurt? Those that value the integrity of the game and its great works of art. Those that want to play at less than a 5 hour pace. Those that want to walk. Those that enjoy interesting golf more than slog golf. Those who just cant get excited at the prospect of our national championship being played at a course that isnt worth a two hour drive to play.
How is any of this hurting anyone? Those who pay for the course changes, in the futile hope that the USGA will notice and return them to prominence. The members at those courses.
Look Shivas, at the Women's US Open a thirteen year old girl's driving average was within a couple of yards of John Daly's 1992 driving average. No problem?
-
I expect to see you chasing Moriarty down the fairway with a 2 iron! ;)
I'd never catch him. He'd be in his cart with a cooler and I'd likely be hoofing it with my bag on my back.
-
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 ;D
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.
Patrick:
Of course, persons who serve on nonprofit Boards would naturally be concerned about liability issues. I'm a physician and well-aware of the cost of malpractice insurance in the NYC area and I also serve on nonprofit Boards.
Enron, etc., has had no impact on the cost of D&O coverage for the vast majority of nonprofit organizations, unless, of course, there has been a history of either criminal conduct or significant litigation.
Generally courts establish good faith via use of a "reasonable person standard."
Rates for D&O insurance are primarily impacted by the value of the organization's assets, experience level and track record of each Director/Officer as well as the track record of the organization. One of the nonprofit Boards on which I serve has held the minimum rate for D&O for over 10 years. The annual premium is less than $3k.
Malpractice and nonprofit D&O cannot even be compared -- the litigation environments are completely different.
PS: Keep a leash on that dog! ::)
-
Everyone should remember that when it comes to rules for equipment, there are two bodies involved and they like to agree on any changes. One of those bodies (R&A) didn't like the COR changes the other (USGA) proposed and caused a split that is just being repaired. When it comes to the ball, they definitely don't want a split. Perhaps the blame should be directed to the other side of the pond. Perhaps there are people at the USGA that are arguing for a change the R&A won't go along. I will say that I have no inside knowledge regarding anything like this so I can't say that is the case, but perhaps we should go back and change "USGA" to "USGA & R&A" in all these equipment threads.
I do know that in regards to some of the other Rules of Golf, the R&A has been the sticking point for changes. The relief for an embedded ball through the green and the change to time of starting allowing a two stroke penalty for being there within 5 minutes are two examples where the R&A won't go along so they remain local rules that are used in every competition in the US.
-
Margaret C,
Enron, etc., has had no impact on the cost of D&O coverage for the vast majority of nonprofit organizations, unless, of course, there has been a history of either criminal conduct or significant litigation.
Generally courts establish good faith via use of a "reasonable person standard."
Rates for D&O insurance are primarily impacted by the value of the organization's assets, experience level and track record of each Director/Officer as well as the track record of the organization. One of the nonprofit Boards on which I serve has held the minimum rate for D&O for over 10 years. The annual premium is less than $3k.
Do not abandon medicine.
Insurance, its markets and pricing are not your forte ;D
-
John V,
David Lee Roth, when asked if he was drifting away from his band, answered, "perhaps we are moving apart because they are standing still".
Could it be said that the R&A and USGA are in the same situation ???
If the two organizations were split on their respective stances on their standards and the effects of the ball and equipment, couldn't that split be exploited by the manufacturers in their lawsuits against the USGA ?
-
Mr. Mucci -
Now I have this image of you driving to the course on Saturday morning, blasting some Van Halen to get pumped up for your match.
Say it ain't so.
-
Michael Moore,
It ain't so ! ;D
-
Shivas, I think you are on to something here. Think about it, the changes at Riviera that are the worst have nothing to do with the length the ball is going. The ugly bunker on 7, the misguided attempt to recreate the double fairway on 8, the green on 8, the green on 13. All these have nothing to do with how far the ball is going. The new back tee on 12 and the like are basically harmless changes in that only the biggest hitters are going back there anyway.
Also the changes to the bunkers at Merion that have been roundly ripped here have nothing to do with the length the ball is going.
Roll back the ball and people will still make those kinds of changes.
-
John,
The USGA, the ball and keeping the course "up to date" are the reasons Riviera has been making changes to appease the USGA. It's all in writing, in memos and master plans. An Executive Committee member and staffers toured the course looking for length while making suggestions designed to deal with technology. I recently spoke to a GM at one course...they're looking for length because the USGA says they have to find it.
The USGA, in particular certain staff members, prefer the architect and shaping team on these classic courses because the architect would listen to them. (Haven't you noticed the trend by now?) Someone like Tom Doak would not ask "how high?" when the USGA says "jump." Tom Marzolf will, and he'll do it for free. And he has, and done it poorly. He would not be there if it wasn't for the USGA and his willingness to work pro-bono.
Roll back the ball and yes, the USGA staff and ExCom members will still suggest changes to courses because they seem to enjoy it, and they'll still use places like Riviera as leverage against places like Pebble Beach. But the frequency with which lousy changes happen will be reduced. Restoration might even stand a better chance of happening in the future, not just at USGA sites, but at the many courses not compromising pure restorations because they don't want to make their course vulnerable in today's game.
Shivas is definitely not onto something here.
Regards,
Geoff
-
Geoff, doesn't the problem really lie with the ownership/management of Riviera that is chasing the golden ring. By doing that and inviting the USGA in to "suggest" changes don't they invite this? Even if they didn't invite the USGA wouldn't the PGA Tour have made similar suggestions if they were asked how to keep the LA Open there instead of having it go somewhere else?
Clubs will continue to ask the USGA what they need to do to get an event. If they ask and the USGA feels that with some set of changes the event could be held, why shouldn't they answer? Do you think they should say, "We won't come here the way the course is and we won't tell you what you have to do to get us here"? No, they will say, "Right now the course is not up to the requirements for that event, but if you really would like it, we can tell you some things you need to do. There are no guarantees that we will come there, but that is the only way we would consider it."
If the management at the club asked the USGA who could do the work, I would prefer the USGA to suggest a range of architects rather than just one. Even if they did only suggest one, the club should still do the due diligence.
If the USGA was just using Riviera as leverage and had no intention of going there that is wrong. It sounds like fraud to me.
-
John,
You're starting to see why I am not letting this one go. Yes, it's fraud in my book. A "deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain."
Just like when the NFL brought up the toxic waste site in Carson a few months ago to help in their negotiations with the Rose Bowl, Riviera and various other lesser courses are on the list that the USGA has handy when the places they want to go to, on their terms ($3 million in rent and a cut of the merchandise), are not cooperating in negotiations. Since the Open accounts for so much USGA revenue and certain diversification schemes have failed, it's vital for the USGA to get the most out of the Open each year. This is also why the Russian Tea Room is important in this equation no matter how much people want to say it's not. If it becomes a drain on their resources, it only reinforces the need to maximize Open revenues and play this little leverage game. That game includes a race to see who has jumped the most after the USGA said jump, so naturally, using the USGA's design ideas and the architects who will implement them is essential.
Yes, Riviera is stupid for going along with this, but they don't know any better and have no desire to learn from their mistakes. The PGA Tour has never made significant design suggestions for as long as I've been familiar with their efforts there. Some horrific fairway contours by a guy named Tom Brown a few years ago were fixed after a phone call from Ben Crenshaw. And there was a lame request for a "beveled" rough cut. That's about as far as the Tour has gone with their ideas. No beaming up and moving bunkers, no suggestions of adding false fronts to greens that never had them, and no additions of pin positions that never existed, and certainly no recommendations for added length to combat the Pro-V whatever is next.
There has been a fundamental change in philosophy at the USGA. A compromise of integrity. The courses must change to fit the way they see the sport being played and to protect the sanctity of par (translation: our egos). And the ramifications from that are just dreadful for the sport in so many ways, especially when you realize that these courses served the sport and the USGA quite well for a long, long time.
Geoff
-
John, I dont know about the ugly bunker on 7, except to say that it is very very ugly.
But I thought the new fairway on 8 was a result of them not having any place to move the tee box back over by the old fairway. They made the hole much longer by putting tee boxes back in line with the new. Thus taking the left completely out of play.
Shivas if you seriously believe that the driving force behind the changes we see isnt keeping up with technology then we have nothing to talk about.
John V, the golden ring is the USGA's ring. That is the real shame. They are supposed to be protecting the game, and they are holding out the carrot that is ruining its finest courses. We cannot control misguided management, but we can get rid of their golden ring, so they lose their excuse to mismanage.
-
Shivas,
At golf courses that I'm fairly familiar with in NY and NJ, many changes were done prior to any recent distance explosion.
Over the last 50 years many of the changes involved lengthening. Other changes involved altering greens, adding bunkers, removing bunkers, etc., etc..
Too often green and long range planning committees, Boards and Presidents have changed golf courses to in an attempt to alter the independent tactical balance of the golf course, originally forged by the architect, to a balance that favors their particular games.
Many times, these changes have been masked under the quise of fairness. Certain features may not be receptive to a segment of the memberships style of play, hence they seek to alter them in the name of fairness. When the next group gets in, seeing what was done in the past, they too make attempts to alter the course in the name of fairness, which now takes its form from their style of play. And as this process continues over a period of 20-50 years the course reflects the scars of all of the alterations, all of the attempts to make it more fair for different golfing styles within the club, and as such, the course loses its distinctive design, the one intended by the architect, leaving present day members with a quiltwork of amateur design attempts in the name of fairness.
I don't think Geoff is referencing these alterations, although,
this is where restoration can be invalueable.
I sense what Geoff is talking about is the more recent trend related to distance, narrow fairways, and high rough.
Narrow fairways may have started in the 50's with the advent of automatic irrigation systems, but they've been narrowed excessively due to the long ball, or focus on driving accuracy, and the demise of tactics and strategy, some of which is equipment related, some of which is maintainance related.
I'm told, that as of this weekend, Shinnecock could hold the OPEN. I'm also told that the fairways are narrow and the golf course about 300 yards longer. This can't be the ideal set-up for membership play, but, monkey see, monkey do, and that's the problem with the trend. Will the golf course restore their fairway widths, as intended by the architect, or will they preserve the course that the PGA Tour players play, as the red badge of courage ?
Even Merion, which narrowed its fairways in preparation for a US OPEN has yet to restore them to their previous and ARCHITECTURALLY INTENDED width, despite the passing of 20-30 years.
This deprives the members of the strategic decisions and play, as intended by the architect, and that can't be good for those who play the golf course day in and day out.
One only has to look at the exalted position that NGLA holds to understand the genius of the architecture, combined with a harmonious maintainance meld, to understand why this course is almost universally praised. It combines challenge with enjoyment for every level of golfer. So, something must be terribly right about NGLA, and I think other clubs would serve their members well by trying to emulate what NGLA presents, rather then what golf courses set up for the PGA Tour present.
But, that's just my opinion, and TEPaul is still wrong. ;D
-
The butt ugly new bunker on Riviera #7
(http://home.earthlink.net/~leftygolfer/_images/Riv7.jpg)
-
Geoff Childs,
I'll bet, if you didn't identify the location of that bunker, and just posted it, some of the cognoscente would have drooled over it, and then choked, when they found out what and where it was. ;D
-
Pat, Not even close.......
-
John V.
A few changes made several years ago were not related to lengthening Riviera, but about 90% of changes are.
You probably aren't aware that this summer they have built a new tee for 18, making it about 470 yards. Something about Chareles Howell hitting a sand wedge there last year. I have no doubt management feared what the USGA would think about that. They have lengthened the bunker on 15, inside of the dogleg, and also this summer added bunkers on the right side of the fairway on 17. A shame to see this once "least altered of all of George Thomas' designs become a Thomas/Fazio looking course. They will not get a US Open. I suspect management is starting to learn that. It has taken some time to realize they are a pawn. In the process have damaged a great property. You can blame Riviera ownership, but an average lawyer could prove the USGA as an accomplice.
A former manager there: "The Tour, they don't care about the course, they will play on a freeway if the money is right."
-
Pat
If we were we to go and play Riviera together we would greatly enjoy the first six holes. Upon arriving at the 7th tee I would take out my camera and snap a picture of your face upon first seeing the bunker on #7. I guarantee you will not send that photo out to any relatives with the look on your face of horror and disgust. I believe I have fairly judged the works of all architects on my posts and you have no reason to think I am biased in any way :) The bunker is out of character and butt ugly compared with the older originals.
Compare the photo above with
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/000003681.jpg)
-
Geoff,
Since you think the USGA is on a downward spiral, how would you define their high water mark?
Tommy,
Regarding the Golf Journal....
I have remained quiet about that for several years for a number of personal reasons. Now that it no longer exists, I will say that the Journal began to auger in when David Earl died suddenly in France in October 1994.
-
I'll bet, if you didn't identify the location of that bunker, and just posted it, some of the cognoscente would have drooled over it, and then choked, when they found out what and where it was. ;D
Patrick, I try to steer well clear of these bunker "look" discussions. They just dont interest me. This particular bunker, though, should be used in the architectural renovation training manual under a section entitled "Sore Thumb." For me it isnt really anything about the bunker, but much more about how it absolutely contrasts with the rest of the course.
So, whatever my impression of the unidentified photo would be, my reaction would be the same seeing it in context. This is definitely one you should see before you defend it.
-
DMoriarty,
Do you mean to tell me that the picture isn't representative of all of the bunkers on the golf course, and that this one is out of context with the others, and the golf course in general ? ;D
-
Patrick
Now you've got it. ;) Look at the two photos.
-
As I said, patrick, I try to stay out of bunker "look" discussions . . .
-
If you think that bunker is out of character, you should get a load of the one on #8. ::) :-[
-
Just to show that Scott Seward is clearly a person that has it in for Geoff, lets go back to this post from way back in September.
Scott, Its unfortunate you don't partcipate on here a lot, and I'm sure your plenty busy with work and all. However, I do find it ironic that the last two times I can recall you initiating conversation, it was to be critical of Geoff Shackelford.
What did Geoff do to you, soil your Russian Tea?