Conversation With USGA Rep

[Tim_Weiman]

Today I had a conversation with someone from the USGA.  I won't share the name of this person, but will share the contents of our conversation.

I took the opportunity to strongly express my concern about the ball and the USGA's lack of action on this subject.  This individual said he agreed that something needed to be done and would be done.

He stated that he agreed with my approach of:

a) announcing intent to address the length of the ball
b) providing for a 180 day comment period
c) providing for a 180 day analysis period
d) providing two years lead time from the point of announcing new regualtions
e) clearly stating the USGA might take further action on the ball periodically

Among the specific points which came out in the course of our discussion:

1) The USGA rep said he agreed the changes being made to Riviera were a mistake.

2) The USGA rep said he agreed it made no sense to revise ANY of the classic courses just to hold a USGA event once every ten years.

3) The USGA rep expressed that Torrey Pines probably wasn't worthy of a US Open, but in his opinion, would still be selected over Riviera.

4) The USGA rep was completely silient when I pointed out that changes being made at Riviera were being justified by the club as necessary for attracting the US Open.  When I pressed the point, he simply didn't respond.

5) The USGA rep said he agreed it would be very interesting to ask the membership at Oakmont to simply set up the golf course in a very penal fashion and demonstrate that making architectural changes wasn't necessary to hold the 2007 US Open.

6) The USGA rep admitted the organization was concerned about the legal aspects of addressing the ball issue, but he agreed that introducing a competition ball would NOT create a legal problem.

Overall, I came away with the impression that the USGA had given a lot of thought to these issues, but wasn't quite ready to take any action.  It really sounded like they need to borrow from the Nike ad and "just do it".

I have no clue how representative this individual's thoughts are with the entire USGA.

[ed_getka]

Tim,
I'm glad you shared your conversation with the USGA guy. Its nice to know that someone is making the USGA aware of some of these issues. Now IF they would just DO SOMETHING!

[Paul Daley]

Thanks Tim. The guy who shared his confidence with you knows full well, and so does every one of his colleagues.

Is any other sport other than golf being held at ransom by the equipment lobby, and nervous officialdolm?

[Dan King]

BillV writes:
But I feel  the correct answer is to once and for all FINALLY stop and roll back the overall distance standard for the ball.  

If the USGA were to do something this stupid they would become irrelevent to me and to probably many other golfers.  I'm not going to play a golf ball that won't travel 200 yards just so a very small percentage of golfers will be sufficiently challenged. I'd play an outlaw ball, which lucky for me, manufacturers will be more than happy to sell to me.

Either change nothing or go to a competition ball.  Rolling back the ODS will be suicide for the USGA.

"Laws were made to be broken."
 --Christopher North

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

I hope this guy knows what he's talking about, I'll believe it when I see it.

Dan
Where did you come up the ball that won't travel 200 yards - they're not thinking of re-introducing the gutta percha are they? And what prevents you or I from playing with an 'illegal' ball today, or 'illegal' equipment for that matter? Nothing as far as I can tell. Since when did you start caring about the rules of golf so strongly? Didn't you state before that you pretty much make up your own rules?

[Tim_Weiman]

Dan King,

This USGA rep and I did spend a fair amount of time on the question of competition ball vs ODS rollback.
 
He seemed to prefer a rollback of the ODS, but acknowledged there were legal concerns about doing so.  He wasn't thrilled about the idea of a competition ball, but acknowledged the USGA would be a safe legal grounds if it went this route.

In the end, it was hard to make sense of where he stood except to conclude that he was not yet ready to act.

FYI, I'm probably in favor of the competition ball idea, just so we can get past the current paralysis and move on.

[Richard_Goodale]

Dan

I could play tennis today with a Pro V1 and probably hit a serve which would clock at 140 or so.  To paraphrase one of our former Presidents, "it would not be right."

You'l play that "competition" ball when it get established as the norm, which it will, and very happily walk to your 230 yard drives.  Trust me.

[Dan King]

BillV writes:
...and to separate the elite player from the rest of the game would change the game irrevocably.

Have you been watching PGA Tour golf?  There already is separation. They play a different game than the rest of us. You should see the list of local rules they play with. They touch the ball between shots more often than not.

A competition ball is a sell out.

If you say that six times will it make it true?

Why is it a sell out?

Why change the best of the best of the courses only?  Why separate the game?

Lengthening courses to appeal to the top .01% of golfers is asinine. The world is full of stupid people. We don’t need rules to protect stupid people from their own stupidity. We need to educate.  

I want more separation. Casual baseball players know they don’t stand a chance against a Roger Clemens fastball.  But golfers are gullible and believe they can compete with Tiger Woods because they occasionally break par. I want more separation so golfers will stop the delusion.
 
Tom MacWood writes:
Since when did you start caring about the rules of golf so strongly? Didn't you state before that you pretty much make up your own rules?

You misunderstood what I’ve said in the past. I love the Rules of Golf. I have a Decision book in my bathroom for study. I’ve taken rules classes, scored 90% on my first attempt, my friends know to come to me when they have a rules question. There are people here with much better knowledge of the rules, but I have better than most.  The long-ago thread was about people saying that if you don’t play by the rules of golf you aren’t playing golf. I know the rules, but that doesn’t mean every time I play golf I play by the rules or even the spirit of the rules.  I don’t need the Rules of Golf to play golf.

Where did you come up the ball that won't travel 200 yards

I currently hit the ball about 240 yards. I have a swing speed around 90 mph. Not great, but better than many. The current ODS of 280 is based on a swing speed of about 105 mph. If the USGA doesn’t want to be back to the same place in another generation they will have to come up with some swing speed that takes into account future generations of golfers. Is there anyone that believes the current generation of golfer has reached maximum swing speed? If you take a ball that goes 280 yards with a swing speed of 150 mph, how far do you think it will go with a swing speed of 90 mph?  I didn’t do the math or anything, but I’m guessing it is around 200 yards or less.

And what prevents you or I from playing with an 'illegal' ball today, or 'illegal' equipment for that matter?

Nothing, I choose to abide by the USGA because I believe in what they do. But if they were to show such total disregard for me that they would lower the ODS just to make the game more challenging to .01% of the golfing population then I would give up on the USGA. They can either consider my game and the majority of the people who they govern or they can ignore us. But don’t count on our continued support if they choose to ignore us.

Tim Weiman writes:
He seemed to prefer a rollback of the ODS, but acknowledged there were legal concerns about doing so.  

Doesn’t sound like he gives a hoot about my game, so ask him, why should I give a damn abut his rules? If the USGA wants to be in the business of making rules for the top .01% of the golfing population, have at it. But don’t expect me to blindly follow.

If I were to advise the USGA, I’d say let the top .01% of the golfing population figure out their own problem. Let ‘em play virtual golf or TPC golf or whatever. I don’t want them screwing up my game and I sure don’t want the USGA catering to them.

Rich Goodale writes:
You'l play that "competition" ball when it get established as the norm, which it will, and very happily walk to your 230 yard drives.  Trust me.

Maybe, maybe not. I want it to be my choice, not some blue coat who seems out of touch with the golfing world.

"A decade from now, I think target golf will be looked on as the disco music of golf course architecture. We’ll simply laugh and wonder how we could have been so light-headed."
 --Peter Jacobsen

[TEPaul]

Tim:

That USGA rep has some interesting ideas. I've talked too to a lot of USGA people over the last number of years about a lot of things that might be seemingly benefical for the future. They seem to share both how things work and operate and sometimes how they think they might be improved--but always in a bit of a guarded or circumspect manner it seems. I would never want to name them either as you wouldn't want to name the rep you had a long and interesting conversation with. You shouldn't and I shouldn't either, I suppose.

But the question here is does the rep you talked (or the ones I talked to) have any input into what's being done about some of these problems either now or for the future? Does he have any ability to make decisions or contribute to them?

That's the question. The entire problem here on the distance issue should probably be aired in its entirely by those at the USGA with their representative, the public, the Tours, the manufacturers, and any other entity that may be effected by a decision on the distance problem.

The USGA already has what's called a "Notice and Comment period" involving B&I rules matters. That fact is made clear in Reed Mackenzie's article in the latest Golf Journal under "Reading the Line"--Making Equipment Rules.

What the USGA needs to do at this point is establish an atmosphere of collaboration in testing among themselves and the manufacturers in an attempt to set B&I goals for the future of the game. That should be done as and in a compeletly open forum, in my opinion.

There shouldn't be anything to hide here--actually they should all take the other tact and open the process up to as many people sd might be interested--it's educational and ultimately benefical that way. But collaboration and accomodation is needed now. The USGA and the manufacturers probably don't agree on the results of their independent tests or even the manner in which they test.

The first step is to bring the testing together to achieve accurate results and data and then to decide what to do with the equipment and how it relates to the golf and the golf course in the context of B&I rules.

[BillV]

It's all about playing the correct set of tees.  Why keep lengthening the courses to accommodate "game improvement equipment" which helps the better ball striker more than the poor ball striker?

Everybody doesn't need to play the Gold, Black, Blue or whatever tees.  I'll play a 6200 yd course happily if 6800 really demands the best of the best.

Golf doesn't need two or three different "games".  Being 50 yds behind the best players off the tees is OK.  Move up a set or two.  "White Tees" are the most pristine anymore. Nobody wants to be a sissy, I guess.

Courses don't need to continue to grow.

[BillV]

Just sending a private e-mail message on the board to a long-time cyber pal, I realized that I hadn't likely articulated a point that I really care about.  

Simultaneous with the desire to preserve what courses we have as they are, I don't want to see golf courses require more and more land to build.  The physically larger the courses, the less likely they remain walkable and the harder it becomes to maintain strategic flexibility simultaneously at 6100 and 7600 yards.

[APBernstein]

The United States is a huge country.  Of course, golf is played around the world.  Seeing as how I don't live "around the world", I will focus on this country and the USGA.

Bill:

You said it.  Courses absolutely can not continue to be built at over 7,600 yards.  Actually, they probably can and will in the near future.

But the fact is this: eventually, we are going to simply run out of land.  When I first told my grandfather, a very smart and wise man that I have the utmost respect for, that I was interested in golf course architecture (this was around the age of 14 or 15, so about 5 years ago), he told me that by the time I was 50, there wouldn't be much land to go around for all these golf courses.  Considering he lives in a golf resort in Charleston, SC, I respected this opinion.

While there may be land, and while there also might not be a huge difference in land size for 7,000 yards to 8,000 yards, will we ever see courses like Wannamoisett, who are quaintly situation on all of 100 acres?  It seems to me that you come with 300 acres or you just don't come at all these days.

Maybe we won't run out of land.  But we may effectively kill a certain type of course with this distance expansion in the golf ball.

It would be difficult to get the entire golf population to switch to a ball that went noticably shorter than the one he played yesterday.  It may not be able to be done with one swift action either.  I am scared that we (and I mean everyone but me, of course, and Bill) would turn into a nation of Condor-wielding plastic tee yokels, if we haven't already.  But I think in principle, that it is the right thing to do.

PS: As for the Condor, it is my favorite of the renegade golf balls.  I haven't played it, but you can't beat the logo and the name.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Paul:

As you probably guessed, I felt it was pretty important to maintain confidentiality regarding the name of the USGA rep I spoke with.  Having a detailed and candid discussion and then broadcasting it here with his name just doesn't seem fair to me.  So, I won't do it.

As for how much influence this individual has, honestly, I'm not really sure and wouldn't say if I did know.  He was plugged into the Far Hills crowd to some extent.  That is all I'll say.

Dan King:

Your comment about this USGA rep not giving a hoot about your game is important.  We actually talked about that issue.

You know I feel that the endless pursuit of absolute length does nothing but add to the costs of playing he game.  This fellow seemed to agree.  Specifically, we talked about how the golf industry ought to be building more Pacific Dunes (all 6,500 yards) and less Whistling Straits (at 7,600 yards).

Nonetheless, there does seem to be a hang up about the obvious solution of a competition ball.  I agree with your sentiment that we just need to face reality and acknowledge that people playing in USGA championships are a small elite, playing a different game and that no harm would come from introducting a competition ball.

[BillV]

Andrew

I found a Condor the other day when I was in Texas.

I haven't tried it yet.  I'll let you know.  Get that Erc ll and 400 yards, here I come.  Golf be damned!!!!! (Heavy sarcasm for those unaware)

Oh, and one other thing, with 7600 yard courses, fast play? ? ?   fughedaboudit!

[THuckaby2]

Jeez that was really well said, all of it, Shivas.  That's a point I've been trying to make for years whenever rules discussions come up - no one follows them religiously anyway, it's just not reality, for exactly the reasons you say.  Thanks for posting this!

TH

[Richard_Goodale]

shivas

Those of us who live or have lived outside of the US know that it is not only USGA and PGA competitions where the game is played strictly according to the rules of golf.  In Scotland, for example, handicaps are wholly based on games played under competitive conditions, under the rules.  Not unsuprisingly, this means that even casual ("bounce") games are played very close to the rules, even though these games have absolutley no bearing on handicaps!  No "2 off the tee" even though over there you are far more likely to be suffering from alcohol deprivation than you are here.  And, any round over 3 hours 15 is seen as ploddingly slow....

Dan/BillV

There are and have always been "2 games."  Dan is brave in admitting it, along with the obvious collolary that we are sheep in believing that we can play Tiger's game.

Cheers

Rich

[TEPaul]

All that was stated about how many golfers sort of play by the rules but maybe not "strictly" is very interesting and no doubt true, but that certainly does not mean that the rules (B&I rules included) should not be properly and realistically conceived, written and defined!

Many golfers may get lax about the rules, probably always have and probably always will but the rules themselves should be "strictly" stated and defined and not devolve into being "laxly" conceived, stated and defined!

We should all remember that the rules of golf, all of them, are not supposed to be some kind of penal code--ultimately they're there for our benefit!

[THuckaby2]

Rich:

Let's be fair here.  In my total of approximately 30 rounds played in Scotland, I never saw anyone play two off the first tee, and that's great, but I also never saw one person ever go back to the tee to correctly play their 3rd after a lost ball.  This is NOT because balls don't get lost, that's for sure!  The Scots are great re golf and I have no doubt they follow the rules more stictly, in general - but they are certainly not completely pure, are they?

In any case, here in the US, the way people treat the rules is about reason #499 on the 500 causes for slow play.  If anything, it makes things go FASTER!

There are many reasons rounds go quicker in Scotland than here, but treatment of the rules isn't part of it, I'd say.

TH

[Richard_Goodale]

BillV

We play on (mostly) the same venues with (mostly) the same balls and implements, but we do not play the same game as the pros any more than we would be playing the same "game" if we tried to get a bat on any of Roger Clemens' stuff or tried to ace Lleyton Hewitt or suited up for special teams practice for the Packers.

It is not semantics but subtlety that makes us realise how crap we are at golf, even if we are pretty damn good vis a vis the norms.  I know, from many of your posts that you can hit the ball 300+ yards.  Why then, prithee, have I not seen your name on the leaderboards of any tunamints, sanctioned, or otherwise?  Do you just not care, or are you, like me, just crap too?

Respectfully

Rich

[APBernstein]

Rich:

The difference between golf and playing against Clemens or Hewitt or the Packers is that in golf, we don't play against anybody.

Golf is a very unique sport where we just go about our business.  Without getting into the existential mumbo-jumbo of the game's origins and purposes, its just different.

You're right, many on this site are crap (I won't say everybody, but many does include me).  But I still refuse to accept that I play a different game than I watch on TV.  Sure, Tiger hits it farther than I do, many people do, amateur or pro.  Sure, Brad Faxon putts better than I do (not many do, but he does).  And Tim Herron weighs quite a bit more than I do (again, many people do).  Its not that they are playing some different game, its just that they put everything together day in and day out.  

I am a relatively low-handicapper and there have been days when I just couldn't miss and go out and shoot sub-70.  There aren't many, but there are days.  They just happen to do it most every time.

I still refuse to accept that it is a different game.  I play golf, they play golf.

[BillV]

It is not semantics but subtlety that makes us realise how crap we are at golf, even if we are pretty damn good vis a vis the norms.  I know, from many of your posts that you can hit the ball 300+ yards(Not always, but more than as a 20 year old). Rich, the pros hit it 360, if you haven't noticed Why then, prithee, have I not seen your name on the leaderboards of any tunamints (tone-a-mints), sanctioned, or otherwise?  

I do play the occasional tone-a-mint.  Does that sanctify what I do?

Rich
If you're using the same skill as Harry Reems when he was famous for what he did, is it not whoopee that you are practicing?  To paraphrase I believe Al Geiberger.  


Sorry, but this is ridiculous and going nowhere.  

I'll go back to playing 50yearoldpennsylvaniabasednewspaperscoring golf as I currently play, and you can play californiaseniorbumpitwhenyoupleaseornotdependingontheday'skarmadogmaordoubledoo
rpaneltruck golf, if that's what you are playing today.

Sorry I started what I thought was a discussion.

Sheesh.
In the immortal words of Jim Rome:
OUT

[Lou Duran]

Shivas:

Most games played for stakes at the club level are policed by members of the group.  So if someone plays a Condor (unlike BillV, I've lived in Texas for 23 years and have yet to find one) and an ERCII, he will be taken to task by his competitors.  I don't worry about this guy's handicap- I am assuming that the Condor/ERCII combo will improve his game and lower his handicap and he will not be using illegal equipment when playing against me.  Those who have prestige handicaps are not a problem.  Unfortunately, we have more than a share of our sandbaggers down here.

BTW, I favor the tournament ball concept to a major rollback of the ODS.  I understand BillV's position, but the game most amateurs play is vastly different than that played by the pros.  Jointly, or alternatively, courses for the professional tournaments could be set up more punitively (firm, faster, narrowing longer landing zones, etc.).  But if comparibility under the one game concept is important, this too would be less than ideal.  Perhaps we should let them shoot what they will under normal conditions from the back tees.  Who knows!  

[Richard_Goodale]

BillV

There are a few important points to be found underneath all the "crap," just like the pony in the old joke.  Subtletly and a sense of humor are useful, however, to crack the code.....

R