[Mark Bourgeois]

We hear a lot about this or that Golden Age course no longer "qualifying" for the US Open because it lacks infrastructure.  Suppose for one year out of five the U$GA tears itself away from corporate villages.  Venue selection really comes down to the quality of the "championship test:" what courses would they revisit?

My hunch is pretty much none, unless those courses tacked on (or have tacked on) a bunch of yards.  Therefore I conclude that commercialism, while a cancer on the Body Golf, is not the true constraint. Rather, the USGA uses commercialism as yet another fig leaf to hide inability to get their technological house in order.

Without US Open commercialism -- ignore in this thought experiment the reality that broader commercialism is exactly and the only real reason the ball hasn't been fixed -- the pressure to fix the ball would be even greater and perhaps decisive.

You may fire when ready.

[Phil_the_Author]

Merion

[Jim_Kennedy]

"Without US Open commercialism.....the pressure to fix the ball would be even greater and perhaps decisive." -Mark B

Primarily false. You would first need to wipe out the commercialism that was created by televised golf and the large purses that accompany them. Without that influence there would be fewer and/or smaller equipment manufacturers putting less pressure on the USGA's B&I rules.
Consider: small purses in the '50s/'60s, fewer manufacturers w/little or no corporate ownership, product cycles of 3 to 5 years, major boom in sane, affordable golf course construction and number of players.
Against: huge purses in the '90s/'00s, heavy corporate ownership among manufacturers, product cycles in the 3 to 5 MONTH range, boom/bust of insane, unaffordable golf course construction and fewer players.

I'm amazed the USGA has been able to remain viable given the pressures they've faced.   
   

[Bill_McBride]

"You can't go home again" - Thomas Wolfe.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Philip

If Merion hadn't added 400 yards would they be going back?  Would they have found a solution to the infrastructure "problem"?  Does Merion shed light on which of the two was the primary constraint?

Jim, why must you wipe out the commercialization of golf to wipe out the commercialization of the US Open?  Does the USGA not control its own tournament?

Bill, the question actually is exactly the reverse: does the infrastructure rationale take pressure off the USGA to move forward?

Mark

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mark,
I think they're an inextricable duo.

[JohnV]

Times change.  The Open stopped going to Musselburgh in 1889 and Prestwick in 1925.  Was that technology, infrastructure or both?  Why is today any different?

USGA only goes where it is invited so, in some sense, they do not control their own tournament.  I believe I read that they approached The Country Club for the 2013 US Open and were turned down.

[Tom_Doak]

I thought Brookline really wanted the US Open in 2013 and felt snubbed they didn't get it and now they don't want it at all ... but I could be wrong about that.

And, John, you are right that lots of courses have fallen off the rotas due to technology ... but in Musselburgh's case I think it was automobile technology that removed them, and at Prestwick it was actually infrastructure [the inability to control large galleries, which might have cost Macdonald Smith his only major championship in '25].

[Mike_Young]

Hey give the new grooves issue a chance.....that is going to take care of a lot of things from distance to the ball issue.....

[Rich Goodale]

Mark

Interesting thought experiement, but you would have to rip those corporate tents out of the dying hands of the USGA, so addicted are they to the money they bring in and to how that money allows them to protect the status quo.  The last thing they want to do is to go back to the funky old venues that created the buzz of Opens gone by, since that would mean kowtowing to the pooh-bahs at those clubs rather than being kow-towed to, as they are when they anoint another wannabe like Bethpage, Hzeltine and Torrey Pines.  They also do not want to go to those venues and see the elite players tear them apart with the new technology--hence the demand that the old venues stretch their tees to the limit and break up the intimacy of their routings, just for 4 days of golf.  The USGA pretends that the reason they rake in all the money they do is for the good of the game, as they put so much of it back into various self-chosen (and self serving) programs.  This is the sort of trickle-down shill that worked so well until recently for high-income taxpayers.  Unfortunately, the facts are that outside of us wing-nuts nobody really cares where the US Open is played, as long as it is televised and the course consists of 18 holes, has land for the tented village and is telegenic.  As long as the cash registers go "kaching!" the blue blazers will be happy, and they'll be even happier if they know that they have delayed the need to make a decision on technology for another year.   IMHO.

Rich

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mark,
Tiger Woods made over 80 times more money per year over a four year stretch (9 mill per year) than Arnie did in 1963 (Arnie made 128k). The business of golf is a 60+ billion dollar a year behemoth that, with one concerted swipe, could brush away the USGA as easily as a horse swats flies with it's tail.
How much latitude do you honestly think they have? I think they do a pretty good job of staying viable in a world that could easily view their whole schtick as an anachronism, and I don't know what could possibly replace them.

I, for one, don't care if they ever take another Open back to a Merion, I'd rather see the place left alone. 

Here's the  ..."various self-chosen (and self serving) programs" they support.
 
http://www.usga.org/aboutus/annual_report/annual_report.html

[Mark Bourgeois]

Jim

If I understand correctly, you are saying the USGA had to commercialize the US Open in order to remain relevant.  What must be true in order for that statement to be true? Why would they be irrelevant if they decided to forgo the corporate village, Amex, and Lexus deals for the USO?

Rich IMHO makes an interesting point I hadn't considered before, namely that loosing the Open from classic private venues hastened the USGA's commercialization of the USO, in that it removed what may have been a true (primary) restraint.  Thus the "infrastructure fig leaf" enables a circular sort of argument wherein commercialism pushes them away from classic clubs that would have brought the ball problem into sharper relief.

Mark

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mark,
Rich usually makes good points, he's a smart guy who thinks before he speaks (or types, in this case) and remains consistent. His recent post is in that mode, and I imagine him donning chain mail and a white cassock with a red lion emblazoned on the chest piece when he writes about the USGA. 

If an impartial observer compared the ' 20s, 30, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and 00s, he would most likely conclude that there were dramatic changes in every facet of the game, and that these changes were inevitable. If the USGA didn't participate in most of them they would have been left behind. As the Tour grew and the money flowed who would the USGA get to play in its Open for relatively little money and no TV time? The event would have been lost completely as it couldn't compete with the Tour's West Bumville Classic that sported a 7 million dollar purse, courtesy cars, corporate sponsorships, networking opportunities, and plenty of TV exposure.

I think the USGA should be thanked for working out a smart deal with Ping back in the '80s, keeping Eli Callaway in check in '01, and revisiting grooves/balls/spin this year. Obviously they missed the PROV1 and its impact, but shouldn't we be blaming Callaway anyway, as they claimed to own so many of the patents? 

[Rich Goodale]

Thanks for the reference to the USGA anual report, Jim.  It brings tears to my eyes in its nostalgic imitation of the 5-Year plans of the former Soviet Union, all the way from the ignoring of often disastrous results down to the quaint election procedures where the lists of those who nominate people for high office are equivalent to the lists of those of are or have been elected to those high offices.  But the reports out of the USSR at least had the saving grace of passion......

Mark

I think the USGA has given up the ghost vis a vis ball technology, and in fact has grown to like the new improved US Open with the (soon to be) 8000+ yards courses and the "power to the people" direction of putting Open venues in new and less fashionable places.  I'm expecting a few "Blue Power" self-congratulatory salutes from the boys at Far Hills after Bethpage 2009, regardless who wins or how.

Rich

[Tony_Muldoon]

At the BUDA Cup this year we will celebrate the Centenary of the first time the Open Championship was held at Royal Cinque Ports.  There was a tented village then and I suspect there’s been one at every Open since.

Anyone have an earlier sighting?

[Mark Bourgeois]

Tony

I shall not be attending BUDA this year as the tents will block the wind and thereby alter the game as it is meant to be played. But it looks as though there will be enough Yanks so that the Scots and Irish will once again fight on behalf of John Bull and his Protestant queen. Golf imitates life.

Jim

Now we are getting somewhere. The premise is that the purse drives the commercialism. I argue it is exactly opposite. The Ryder Cup demonstrates this: pros played happily for nothing until they were made aware of the commercial aspect.

Pros still will play in our National Open for a reduced purse if they know the reduction is not the result of shifting funds elsewhere.

The point stands: the ball problem gives the USGA an incentive to commercialize the USO.

Rich

It is the PGA that should be commercializing, pursifying, and collectivizing, not the USGA. In the future there will be a true fourth major, and it will be the national open of the PRC. It will be a major not because it earns the right, but because it buys it.

Mark

[Mike Sweeney]

The premise is that the purse drives the commercialism. I argue it is exactly opposite. The Ryder Cup demonstrates this: pros played happily for nothing until they were made aware of the commercial aspect.

I think you are forgetting The President's Cup. Every other year for the Ryder was fun. Now every year for the Americans becomes a job.

Pros still will play in our National Open for a reduced purse if they know the reduction is not the result of shifting funds elsewhere.

Pros will also play because it is in their incentive contracts and post-Open earnings power to win the US Open. This is the college football argument all over again. Football pays for women's field hockey and the US Open pays for the junior titles. We all look the other way at times.

The point stands: the ball problem gives the USGA an incentive to commercialize the USO.

The US Open has been commercialized for years. It is just more commercialized now.

Rich

It is the PGA that should be commercializing, pursifying, and collectivizing, not the USGA. In the future there will be a true fourth major, and it will be the national open of the PRC. It will be a major not because it earns the right, but because it buys it.

US Squash has recently moved from Bala Cynwyd, PA to Manhattan offices. When the top players in the world come to The States (most of top players are foreign), they want to play in Manhattan not in Bala Cynwyd at The Cynwyd Club. Guess what, US Squash is very pure but they have to take what they can from endorsements:

http://www.ussquash.com/

The change in the ball for squash in 20 years has basically made every American squash court inoperable. Every court has had to or will need to be rebuilt. When you have courts in old building with beams and they need to be wider, it produces huge changes.

The technology changes that the USGA have seen are a drop in the bucket compared to tennis and squash.

PS. I grew up in Bala Cynwyd, so I can say that. 

[Mark Bourgeois]

PS. I grew up in Bala Cynwyd, so I can say that. 

I would hope you can say Bala Cynwyd then.

Re squash I never got past hard or soft. So I stick with yellow.

Re cross subsidy argument, that actually might support my point as it helps them feel better about the commercialism, and anything that justifies commercialism of the USO enables them to feel that much less urgency about the ball problem.

Anyway, let's tackle the college football cross subsidy: from what I have read, the great majority of football programs actually lose money, including many I was surprised to hear.

So the cross subsidy is largely a myth, unless you consider that other sports may in fact be subsidizing football. Often this is hidden by athletic depts using creative accounting, and so we the public are led to believe football does the rest of us a favor.

Similarly, before we accept the cross subsidy USO argument, do we know the financial impact of reduced commercialism? How much of the money would come out of the purse? How much cheaper would a decommercialized USO be to run? And what if they just shifted the commercialization over to everything else - the other tournaments, the agron stuff, etc?

I know that IRW any approach to decommercialization would have to sort out the subsidy issue, but in terms of this thought experiment the presence of a subsidy seems to reinforce the contention that commercialism protects the USGA from the painful decision of fixing the ball problem.

Mark

[Garland Bayley]

IMHO, the reason the USGA does not corral the ball is that the everyman who plays the game does not want them too. They would get an uprising from everyday players who love their low spin balls.

This has been made abundantly clear to me from debating the issue on this website. The easiest way to bring the ball back under control would be to write regulations on the spin so that it would be restored to what it was before. Even members of this website who bemoan the obsoleting of the classic venues, and who support further regulation of the ball, do not want the spin put back. Why? They realize they would be back to struggling to hit the ball straight like they were struggling before the Strata begat the Pro V, and they found their drivers staightened out.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Now we are getting somewhere. The premise is that the purse drives the commercialism. I argue it is exactly opposite. The Ryder Cup demonstrates this: pros played happily for nothing until they were made aware of the commercial aspect.
Pros still will play in our National Open for a reduced purse if they know the reduction is not the result of shifting funds elsewhere.- Mark

I don't think that proves anything, the Ryder Cup is a PGA of America production, not a USGA event, and the Open isn't limited to a handful of players.

What I am saying is that the USGA and its Open would become less relevant if it didn't stay on an equal footing with the events  being produced by the PGA Tour.

In my opinion the 'ball problem', as you stated it, is irrelevant.   

[Sean Leary]

Tom Doak,

I think TCC wanted it but not under the conditions that the USGA wanted to impose on them. So they took the US Am instead.

I would have liked to see it played in '13 at TCC myself. Just for the nod to history.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()