[jimhealey24]

Following up on the "What's Geoff like" issue on the USGA...

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

[John_Conley]

Jim:

Haven't addressed the ball situation?

* Max driver length (we didn't have that two years ago)
* Max clubhead size (ditto)
* Max C.O.R. (somehow we all now know what that means)
* New testing standard for balls (2003)
* Max & Min size of ball (old rule)
* Max & Min weight (old rule)

What do you want them to do?  The line is drawn in the sand and there's not much if anything a manufacturer can do.  The biggest "innovation" from Titleist this year was a reversion to the 1982 dimple pattern.

Seems to me like you want them to rein in the standard and "take back" the ball.  If so, just say it.  I just think your statement that the USGA hasn't done anything about balls misses most of the last few years' work.

(Are you the Jim Healey I met at Bandon who was shaping for David?  If so, be sure to look me up if your travels ever bring you back to Orlando!)

All the best,
JOHN

[Robert_Walker]

When did the USGA sue PING? I never heard about that one.

[John_McMillan]

He got the parties reversed ... Ping sued the USGA.

[A.G._Crockett]

John Conley
Good list and a good post.

We have to assume that the people of the USGA are people of good faith (like us) who love the game (like us) and are trying their level best to find ways to do the right thing (like us).  The advantage of representative democracy is that full-time decision-makers generally make better decisions than knee-jerk reactionary citizens operating on partial or flawed data.  Laws or rules made poorly typically cause far more (and more serious) problems than the one they were intended to solve.

Consider this quote:
"It is much easier to write a good play than to make a good law, and there are not a hundred people in the world who can write a good play."
                         George Bernard Shaw

[John_Conley]

A.G.:

As I age, I realize more and more that people gripe about something after the fact.  People want the USGA to "do something" because they see the ball going further than they are comfortable with.  The USGA "does something" - I must admit I'm amazed at how few people realize the meaning of these "steps" indicating their recognition of the issue - and people are still griping because the ball still goes further than they are comfortable with.

I challenge anyone to show me where the ball manufacturers will find their next yardage increase.

[JakaB]

John,

Distance simplified is a combination of ball speed, spin rate and launch angle.   I think in a short amount of time manufacturers will develope a core that has a lower spin rate as ball speed increases.  Or it could be said spins less as it is compressed more....This will allow a ball to go exponentially further as ball speed increases while actually spinning more for iron shots....Just a theory.

I used to think like you did until I got hooked up to the Titleist computers....we are just at the dawn of understanding swing mechanics as they relate to distance....and I will probably play the game a few years longer thanks to it.

Back to topic.....I love the USGA and every person who gives their professional life to its causes...more than I can say for off the cuff monday morning douche bags.

[jimhealey24]

John C:

Do you really believe the ball mfrs won't find additional distance?  Got any swamp land?  It's all a matter of physics. Air passing over the ball, lift, dimple depth, shape, etc.  Just this past year we heard that the New ProV1 was longer than last years ProV1. When will it end?  Why do the Mrfs care.  People will keep buying longer balls as they have since the turn of the century when the press complained about how the Haskell was going to ruin the game.

Regarding my earlier post, it wasn't meant to just slam the USGA, but how they are approaching the issue of courses for their championships; with the same being said for the PGA, Tour and R&A.  It's technology - and parking/transportation issues - that are driving many older, classic courses out of the championship business.

Had a discussion yesterday with some golfwriters about which courses in Chicago could support a championship event.  Think about it.  Olympia Fields and Medinah.  Cog Hill, if they wanted to go public again. Then where?  Butler? Chicago GC will host the Walker, but not a Major.  One of the first factors considered is the length of the course, then the parking issue (or maybe reversed in some cases). We're being relegated to newer courses because of technology.  You've all heard the complaints about the parking for Shinnecock for next year, but its' good to see a course like that back into the mix.

If the USGA was serious about presesrving and protecting the game they would take a long hard look at what they are doing.  Modernizing a course to make it an Open Course? If it was good enough to be an open course years earlier, why does it need moderinization? Could it be technology has forced them to do this? Have we come full circle about the issue?   Address the technology and the course issues aren't as much of an issue.  Classic layouts don't need moderinization, and so on.

[John_Conley]

Jaka:

As I've said many times before, you are talking about "optimization".  Finding the right mix of club, ball, swing to yield the best result.  My view?  You swing as hard as you're going to swing, the manufacturers know enough to make balls as far as they can go (NOT always the case; Titleist made wound balls just two years ago), and you'll (in the near future, as you mentioned) figure out how to match the two for best results.

That new Pro V?  Oh, you mean the one with the 1982 334 dimple cover.  Which is it?  Do more dimples make the ball go further or not?  The answer is, "it depends" and the new ball is for less spin because of the high clubhead speeds of today's top player.  But don't confuse yourself with calling that new technology.  It isn't.  It is correct use of existing technology.

Jim:

"it's all a matter of physics"

Which is why some dinosaurs were too big for their own good, a man can't run a mile much under 4 minutes or 100 yards faster than 10 seconds, a baseball doesn't carry more than about 450 feet, and your car doesn't get more than 30 mpg - even on the highway.  

There are absolute limits.  It is not possible for a human to carry a golf ball 400 yards at sea level with allowed equipment.  It isn't.

I know you think the ball just keeps going farther and farther, but I can assure you if every boast of "ten more yards" as a result of some driver/shaft/ball type/dimple pattern/tee/magic swing move/swing thought netted those ten more yards I would hit it past the moon.

When you hear "additional twenty yards" be sure to ask, "as opposed to what".  Golf balls today don't go much (if any) further than the Slazenger 480 Interlock "marble" from the late 80s.  People's willingness to try distance balls has sure changed over the last 15 years.

I sense that we keep getting halfway to the end and we'll never get there.

One more time a point that bears repeating, counting yards versus where people hit it back in the day is misleading in that today's Tour pro is around 280 with VIRTUALLY ALL CARRY.  Do pros and top amateurs hit it far?  Absolutely.  Are some courses compromised?  Definitely.  Has the USGA been ignoring this?  No, no matter what you hear on TV from Gary Player (Man in Black II) and Jack Nicklaus.

[Jeff Fortson]

Eventually golf balls will be made with anti-gravity technology and they will never land.

JakaB,

Could you clarify who is or what makes someone an "off the cuff monday morning douche bag"?  Thanks.


Jeff F.

[JakaB]

Jeff,

I thought the first post on this thread by Jimhealy24 qualified for OTCMMDB status...sorry if I wasn't clear.

[Jeff Fortson]

JakaB,

Thanks for clearing that up.

Jeff F.

[TEPaul]

John Conley:

Good post there. Occasionally some of these posters on here act as if the USGA tech dept will never again deem anything as non-conforming!

Little by little it seems to me what happened with technology in the last ten or so years is beginning to come to light in detail. I'm quite interested in the recent R&A/USGA "Joint Statement of Principles". But obviously what I want to see next is exactly how the R&A/USGA plan to put those new principles into effect. When would be sort of nice to know too.

[Daniel_Wexler]

John Conley:

Just out of curiosity...

If, as you suggest, the line is indeed drawn in the sand, are we to infer from your post that you consider the present situation (e.g. 370-yard drives in still conditions at the US Open) to be acceptable for the long-term future of golf?

Lines in the sand are wonderful (if, in fact, the phrase even proves valid) but to paraphrase Nick Faldo:

"The horse is so far out of the barn, it's in stud."

DW

[Mike_Sweeney]

 You've all heard the complaints about the parking for Shinnecock for next year, but its' good to see a course like that back into the mix.

Jim,

Back in the mix? Raymond Floyd and Corey Pavin won US Opens at Shinnecock if you had not heard.

Parking. What complaints? Shinnecock '95, there were no significant complaints about parking. Basically NYC people parked in Westhampton and were bused in, and locals and east of Southampton locals, including myself, parked in the Shinnecock Indian reservation where you could walk or bus. The train is also right there. In 9 years of commuting weekends from NYC to Southampton 40-45 weekends a year, the weekend of the US Open at Shinnecock was the LIGHTEST TRAFFIC that I EVER experienced in The Hamptons.

In reference to your other issues, I think I count 8 over a period of 10+ years. If I had only made 8 mistakes in my business over the last 10 years, I would be playing at Royal Dornoch with Rich G on a regular basis.

Dave Miller is running a tournament with the USGA this week at Charles River. Ask him what he thinks of the USGA. Oh yea, I played Bethpage last week for $17 twilight rate, and I enjoyed that as much of any round this summer, and I had some good ones. It was a very good course before, and they made it better (Rees too). Listen, the ball issue is a problem that really exploded this year. They are not above critique (and I have critiqued them), but let's give them a chance. They DID FIX the traffic in The Hamptons.

[jimhealey24]

Mike Sweeney:

You missed my point.  I was glad that Shinnecock was once again hosting an Open.  I enjoyed the previous recent events there, and having hosted the second open in 1896, it's good to see such courses continuing to be part of the Open history.

Regarding parking, etc. I can only relate what I was told by fellow golf writers who attended both opens there. There were, according to them, many complaints about the narrow roads, long commutes and the like. If you say that that didn't occur, then so be it.
JH

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Healy,

Complaints about the long commute seem comical.
The fact is that Shinnecock is located in Southhampton and not Manhattan, and, Southhampton isn't just over the mid-town bridge/tunnel.  How is the USGA to blame for Shinnecocks whereabouts ?

With respect to Narrow roads, Interstate 495 is 6-8 lanes,
Routes 110 and 27 are 4 lanes, with Route 27 pinching to 2 lanes about a mile or two from Shinnecock.  It's true that the residential roads are narrow, but so is 58th street in Manhattan.

Compare the road networks around Winged Foot and Baltusrol to Shinnecock and I think you'll find that Shinnecock is pretty easy to get to.

Perhaps those other writers were just looking for something to complain about, and these were the only things that they could come up with, which would seem to indicate that everything else worked out pretty well.

[Mike_Sweeney]

Mike Sweeney:

You missed my point.  I was glad that Shinnecock was once again hosting an Open.  I enjoyed the previous recent events there, and having hosted the second open in 1896, it's good to see such courses continuing to be part of the Open history.

JH

Jim,

I am still missing your points. Shinnecock Hills Golf Club, yes, the Course at Shinnecock, NO. The COURSE that hosted the 1896 Open is barely there today. The changes at Shinnecock by CB Mac, Raynor, Flynn and others have well been documented here and elsewhere by George Bahto, Tom Paul, Wayne Morrison......

The bus for spectators last year at Bethpage last year was no picnic, especially on the rainy day that I attended. Maybe that is the miscommunication. It went from Jones Beach to Bethpage via backroad as many of The Parkways (thanks Robert Moses) are bus free. I can't speak for where the writers parked. I can't believe that the USGA was not able to reduce the traffic on The Grand Central Parkway coming out from Manhattan. What are they doing with my/our dues.  

In the belief of being part of the solution and not the problem, have your friends contact me, and I will guide them in, and tell them to stay for the following weekend at Shinnecock, and then they will see traffic.

[JohnV]

Most golf writers who don't get a police escort to VIP parking next to the Media tent and its buffet line are going to complain about the parking problems.

[John_Conley]

John Conley:

If, as you suggest, the line is indeed drawn in the sand, are we to infer from your post that you consider the present situation (e.g. 370-yard drives in still conditions at the US Open) to be acceptable for the long-term future of golf?

Wex:

Yes, the ball goes a long way.  The post pretends the USGA has done nothing, and to hear people talk you'd think that viewpoint is gospel.

Jack Nicklaus has said it so everyone repeats it, "they need to 'do something' about the ball."  They (the USGA) has 'done something'.  If that isn't enough, people should say, "the USGA needs to rein in the ball and take back the distance it travels," and then get VERY SPECIFIC.

How do you propose the USGA rein in the ball, if that's what you want them to do?

I don't think you'd harm the game at all to mandate smaller head sizes for drivers, reduce the initial velocity by requiring "mushier" core materials (thus not affecting overall weight; I'd hate to see a lighter ball that gets lost in the wind), and invoke some maximum dimple number (the Pro V1x with just 332 dimples would need more lift if you deadened the core material).

Now, how likely do you think it is that we'll see such changes?

[A.G._Crockett]

Reinforcing what John Conley wrote, I'll add this (again!).

     "It is much easier to write a good play that to make a good law, and there are not a hundred people in the world who can write a good play."
                                      George Bernard Shaw

[Daniel_Wexler]

John Conley:

First, I unequivocally favor rolling back the golf ball substantially (Nicklaus's 10% sounds fine).  Equally, I'd support maximum clubhead sizes, as well as your other suggestions, though with the present USGA leadership refusing to acknowledge (at least publically, anyway) that there's even a problem, I'm hardly holding my breath.

More importantly -- and I'm saying this broadly, NOT specifically aiming at your words -- it cracks me up when people start whipping out all sorts of scientific phrases to justify why the USGA can't get a handle on things.  I'm no scientist, but it absolutely defies logic to suggest that the organization is incapable of devising meaningful limitations on the golf ball.  They simply don't want to or, more reasonably, lack the guts to.

I know, I know, they're going to get sued.  Accept that:

A) They have, admirably, stuck to their guns on spring-like effect....and where are the lawsuits?

B) "Properly handled, dealing with this problem has zero legal exposure"  (- Sandy Tatum)

But regardless, I've completely given up on the USGA doing what needs to be done.  They either don't get it, don't want to get it, or are afraid to get it.

Play on.

DW

[A.G._Crockett]

Daniel,
Isn't the COR debate a poor analogy to the ball problem?  To wit, the current crop of balls STILL comply with the tests that have been in place for years and years.  There is a significant difference in putting in a new rule (COR) that draws a line that didn't exist before, and making an ex post facto decision that balls that have always been legal no longer are.  I'm not by any means a legal expert, but the restraint of trade implications of such a "roll back", AFTER the companies had, in good faith, done the R&D and production/marketing work would seem prohibitive.  

I take the USGA's position to be that a roll back of the ball would NOT solve the distance "problem" (to whatever extent it IS a problem), but would cause other issues to further muddy the water, i.e., litigation, bifurcation, etc.  In that respect, I think the USGA is doing a great job in not rushing to judgement.

I've said this before, but I'll go to my grave believing that the benefit of the ProVI is not the distance it travels, but rather how hard I can swing at it because of how straight it flies!  The guys on the long drive circuit still ain't using ProV's, though; why not?  Well, its because there are still longer LEGAL balls out there.  So should the USGA try to find a way to do a "straightness" rollback, instead of a distance roll back?  How would that be done?  Just food for thought...

[Daniel_Wexler]

A.G.

First, you'll have to explain to me how "a roll back of the ball would NOT solve the distance 'problem'"...  I'm definitely not following you there.

As far as the litigious aspects of making illegal something that was already approved, it wouldn't be the first time (remember Sam Snead's croquet-style putter?).

More importantly, as Sandy Tatum, Frank Hannigan and others have remined us, compliance with USGA rules is 100% voluntary (save for those few entering one of the organization's national championships).  So let a manufacturer sue!  First, they'll have massive PR problems (you'll recall that Callaway did file suit -- in Canada -- on spring-like effect, then quickly withdrew it).  Second, they've got to convince a judge that their trade is being restrained when, in fact, virtually nobody is COMPELLED to do anything by the USGA.  And third -- and by far most importantly -- is the USGA's job to govern based on what they believe is best for the game or how best to appease the manufacturers?

I know where I stand on that question, but I'm very much unsure about them.

DW

[Patrick_Mucci]

John Conley & Daniel Wexler,

It would seem that a competition ball, developed by ANGC or the USGA could help the roll back the distance issue.

Restricting clubhead size, COR and club length could also assist in fixing the distance issue.

Combining the above would seem to return the game to the satisfaction of most.

What I would like to know is:

WHAT ARE THE IMPEDIMENTS TO IMPLEMENTING THESE CHANGES ?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()