Is the R&A a Member’s Quango (Quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation)

[Melvyn Morrow]

Perhaps not it its proper sense but certainly when associated with an unrepresentative body answerable to itself, Quango seem rather applicable.

Let’s looks at just a few points in its short history of being the Governing Body of our game which I believe it was there to protect and nurture for the good of the game.

Since they have been in charge we have seen equipment continuing its long charge apparently uncontrolled to the current point that a player just needs to pop out to the nearest golf equipment shop to purchase the latest club to reduce his score. Some clubs are boasting a saving of around 17 yards.

Since the late 1940’s we have seen the massive introduction of carts, eliminating the need to walk, worst still the acceptance of Non Walking Golf Courses.

Then we have seen the distance aid being introduced, now we have the electronic hand held devices.

There are more points but for the sake of this topic I will for the moment hold to them as the basis of my disappointment in our governing body for not protecting the game of golf let alone upholding its traditions.

Why have carts, distance aids and technology been allowed to run riot throughout our game.
How can the Governing Body legalise carts in a game that has traditionally for 600 years been a walking game? 
Why have outside distance aids been allowed to pollute the purity of the great thinking game that is or alas was golf?
When was golf a game that allowed money rather than skill to dominate the fairways?

The biggest crime against the game is allowing technology to appear to run uncontrolled. Understandable in the mid 1800’s when the gutty ball gave some 50 years consistency allowing clubs to catch up with the ball made some sense, but then not to peg or control the development seems to this golfer a massive missed opportunity which would have helped preserve many of the great Holes and Courses. Worst still it’s this attitude that there is no problem, that all is under control.

The game is in chaos, there are now so many variations of golf no one seems to know or care about the traditional game. This has culminated with technology not being used to sustain the quality of ball or clubs but to turne golf into a glorious aerial Pitch and Putt game, which is doing serious harm to GCA.  Courses are being lengthened, yet the ball flies over much of the course be it old or new, fairway hazards are now deemed unfair (perhaps even too penal), so they are mainly found around the Green. Not as traps because of the shallow hard nature of the sand and bunkers, but as gentle run offs.

A quango makes decisions that do not get challenged therefore the need to consider the full consequences of their actions is never considered.

I wonder if the motto of the R&A is Carry on Regardless, because their actions and decisions IMHO have not be productive let alone good for the game of Golf, worst still Golf Course Architecture. The only near pure game of golf played today is The Open, but then perhaps we have far more to thank Prestwick than we do The R&A.

A Quango is not healthy for the game of golf and I hope they see the writing on the wall soon, as I feel the game needs to address its problems.

Melvyn

[Pete Lavallee]

What do you suggest we do to change this situation?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Peter

I thought that I was asking the question. Clearly from the interest and response all is rosy in the world of golf. But then why should it not be if you have little to no interest in the traditions and wellbeing of the game, just wanting to play it in your way.

However, your way may well have an effect upon the GCA. Just look at the implications of using carts and the special requirement they need in the design stage. As for distance aids, blind shots negate their need, so we minimise on blind Holes as perceived not to be liked by golfers, yet this site has proven that incorrect.

So therefore the actions of The Ruling Body have through their poorly thought out actions (if they even considered the long term consequences of their actions, that is) created special expensive needs. It would not be so bad if it was to improve skill and up the challenge, it has alas indeed done the opposite by attracting the unskilled and tolerated a way of thinking that I would say was alien to the great traditions of the game that is one of laziness. Today all that a player needs to reduce his score is purchase the latest high tech club which according to some claims may shave off 17 yards not per Hole but per stroke.       

Yet, do our Lords & Masters consider it’s a problem, do they see any difficulty, in fact do or have they acknowledged there is a problem. Then again, many by their lack of response to this topic are no interested either so should we not then suppose that we have the governing body we deserve, nevertheless I do know that there are among you golfers who do care as much as this guy, so why do you not stand up and be counted.

Peter, you ask a question “What do you suggest we do to change this situation?” First become united in our concerns, then seek a platform to be able to open a dialog with The R&A, stating our concerns and seeking their help in correcting the errors of the past. One way would be to seek a scientific test as to the energy saved by carting vs. walking. An American test was conducted in the 1920 ‘The Excess of Energy’ which only looked at dropping and picking up a golf bag through one round. If this is proven that riding saves considerable energy then a penalty of 3-4 strokes (or whatever is deemed correct subject to the test results) should be levied upon all riders to try and address the imbalance. Then we can examine each issue that is currently accepted as lawful and see it if actually meets the scrutiny that is at the heart of the traditional of the game of golf that of simple honesty not just for others but more importantly for ourselves.

Build the laws on solid, true and trusted foundations while trying to examine the future implications of our decisions.
Carts, aids and technology are running amok over the traditions not to mention the Spirit of The Great Game of Golf. Should our Governing Body not be asked to correct their errors for the good of the game?

If at first you go not succeed, try and try and try again – a well know Scottish saying held close to many a Scottish heart.

Do I want to see the demise of the R&A, NO, I do not, but it can’t go on as it has, it must be accountable and act in the interest of The Royal & Ancient Game of Golf, not put its many variations first. I hope that the R&A will see the light before it’s too late and embrace a policy to protect not just the game but the designs behind our many great courses worldwide.   

Melvyn 

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Melvin, did you step on a rock/pebble when you got out of bed this morning?

[Anthony Gray]

  there is golf and there is tournament golf

[Bill_McBride]

Melvyn, how can you refer to the "short history" of the Royal and Ancient Golf Club when it was founded in 1754?

How could the R&A legislate against general use of electric carts other than banning them from competition - which they do?  The decision by owners of courses to provide carts is a matter of demand and supply and free enterprise.

I never figured you for a Communist!

[Bob_Huntley]

Melvyn,

Did not Old Tom defy Allan Robertson's order not to use the gutty under penalty of dismissal? He must have been aware that the change would cause the game to change forever. Wasn't the distance and durabiity similar to what we see in the ball today? When Mr. Gammeter produced the Haskell, the game of golf expanded considerably. I can see your concern over advances in modes of transport on golf courses;  when not handicapped I thought walking was the way to play the game, but even your ancestor did not rail against the advantages of a better product, the gutty.

Bob  

[Melvyn Morrow]

Tiger
I am sorry you do not like any comment that questions certain aspects of the controls over the game of golf, but then again do you really care for the game as I do. I have raised some fair questions and issues that have changed the game in just the last 30-40 years.

Anthony
Sorry mate there is only golf in my eyes all else is just a weak illusion of the real thing.

Bill
The R&A have indeed been around since the mid 1700’s but I was referring to the R&A as the Governing Body of the game which I believe only started in the later 1890’s.

As for carts, before I continue my drive against carts (except for age/medical reasons), let’s get this test done by one of the authorities in golf based upon the energy saved by using a cart and then lay down some balance in the form of penalty strokes IF energy is saved by riding over walking. 

“I never figured you for a Communist!” wow and this from the country formed because it wanted some Representation'
What was the saying ‘No Taxation without Representation'. I suppose it different when others seek the same sort of thing, Tiger I think your comment may relate to Bill and no me.

Bob
What has Allan & Old Tom got to do with my opinions? Also The Gutty was not just a development of the Featherie ,it was actually the first true ball which allowed the ball to roll be it wet or dry. It gave to the game a consistency for nearly 60 years which allowed clubs to be made to compliment the ball. Thanks to this stability the game grew as the ball became affordable. Yet in other sports around at the time i.e. cricket, football,  etc.,  we do not see their playing fields changing much even when  the football and the cricket ball develop, so why in golf. Simple the governing body had no idea of what it was doing, just look at the long debate well that’s not true let’s call it what it was the long dithering about the golf ball.

There is nothing wrong with new technology but not to improve the distance travelled by the ball that is just inexcusable and IMHO should be banned outright, yet worst still many players believe it acceptable. That is what scare me more, that people will use any advantage to outperform another, and most regrettably not by skill and ability alone. Golf is becoming a bastion for cheats condoned by our governing body, a sort of golfing human right.

What saddens me most is that amount of intelligent people that willing turn a blind eye. The game is being corrupted by greed, to win at any cost, honour is slowly becoming a thing of the past, soon a man’s word will be totally meaningless.
Of all people on this site I though you with your experience of life would have been an active supporter of fair and honest play. No there is nothing wrong in using improved technology as long as it is controlled and this is where I part company with The R&A.

Melvyn

[Bob_Huntley]

My dear Melvyn,

You wrote thus:

"What has Allan & Old Tom got to do with my opinions? Also The Gutty was not just a development of the Featherie,,it was actually the first true ball which allowed the ball to roll be it wet or dry. It gave to the game a consistency for nearly 60 years which allowed clubs to be made to compliment the ball." I would say," everything".

 If the Gutty was not a development of the Featherie but a complete and utter change and improvement of the old ball with its concommitant increase in durabilty and  distance, why are you so agitated about the modern ball?

By the way when it comes to walking and carrying, I have a photograph of a gentleman riding his horse between shots on the Old.


Bob

[Tony_Muldoon]

By the way when it comes to walking and carrying, I have a photograph of a gentleman riding his horse between shots on the Old.


Bob

I think that was a Mr Lowe?  I understand the other members hated it as hereally slowed the game down around the greens!  Mind you it does show they had a certain tolerance for allowing others to play the game they way they wanted to.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Bob

The point behind my opinion is that today we are well past the development stage in golf to actually being able to generate a consistency in the game. We have the equipment to constantly play a golf round after round with the only need to rest the weary golfer and replace the lost balls.  

Fine, develop the reliability of the equipment but do not build extra distance into it as well. More distance only dissipates our great Holes and Courses which are already expensive to build and maintain. The effect of distance on a course is in itself destructive, the Holes need to be lengthened, forcing hazards to also to be moved or modified to still come into play, all costing money and more importantly eating up land which in some cases is nearly exhausted all because we will not control technology. Yet the refusal to accept that there is even a problem from a governing body -  which is meant to protect the game of golf is contemptible. My fears relate to the R&A in what seems to be their underlining attitude which to me verges upon more their lack of knowledge and ignorance than contempt.

Lowe did indeed ride a horse on TOC, what a great example of a well educated golfer. Clearly he could not have been aware that TOC allowed sheep but had stopped the practice of allowing cows due to weight and potential course damage. A feature shared by both cows and horses is the indentation upon the fairways not far adrift from a divot. A fine upstanding – ops sorry riding Gentlemen who not surprisingly was a member of the R&A showing clearly his actual total distain for other golfers as well as the people of the town who owned the Links.

Bob, is it not time the game of golf grew up and offered some degree of consistency. Should we not concentrate on reducing the land cost by stop tinkering with a course because we will not control technology? I want to see our great Holes and courses maintained for future generations and not being forced to change every few years because an unaccountable group’s inability to act to protect the game of golf.  

If the game has matured is it then not time that the same applies to The R&A?

Melvyn