[TEPaul]

Daniel:

That the USGA does not appear to be paying any attention to the protests of the likes of Nicklaus/Faldo/Els and so many other visible and famous golfers today certainly is surprising and disheartening to me as well. At the very least I can't understand why they don't at least attempt to use them as allies.

But frankly every time I've tried to figure out what the USGA is going to do next on something they surprise me and go about it with an entirely different method than I thought they might use. Just last Sunday Dick Rugge spoke to 85 of us at GCGC. I asked him if controlling the minimum amount of spin rate of the golf ball would effectively control or roll back this recent distance increase? Do you know what he said to me and the other 84 people in the room?

He said; "Sure it probably would but there are numerous ways we're aware of that could roll back the distance the golf ball goes but we are happy with where distance is right now and we are only trying to ensure that distance does not significantly increase from here in the future".

That's what he said and there were 84 other witnesses in the room. But you know what---I suspect that a remark like that is just some type of guise. I think they really are trying to float some form of proposal that might effectively roll back distance without having to make a huge issue and Federal case out of it. Otherwise why would they have fairly recently floated this idea publicly that they are seriously looking at these issues of what they referred to as "spin generation" and "MOI"? Why the hell did they publicly announce that if they aren't thinking of using that to do something about distance? Actually, I think I know why. It's called an under the radar screen way of informing the manufacturers (and others) of what they may be about to propose in their formal "Notice and Comment" I&B rules and reg alteration procedure. The latter is a completely necessary legal procedure, by the way, that must legally precede all I&B rules and regs alterations.

As odd as it sounds they very well may be looking for ways of effectively rolling back distance without even having to admit that it's happening---not unlike how they seem to be unwillng to admit what everyone interested in this issue already knows---eg that the manufacturers managed to effectively increase distance as much as they already have in the last ten years without the USGA wanting them to and more startlingly right underneath the USGA/R&A's nose and even in conformance with the USGA's own I&B rules and regulations!

[Paul Richards]

Tom

>As odd as it may sound they very well be looking for truly effective ways of even rolling back distance without even having to admit that it's happening


Given their history, especially recent, I'd have to say you are giving them WAY too much credit.

Smart and cunning?

Not likely.

More like, stumbling and bumbling.


For the good of the game.


 

[Daniel_Wexler]

Tom:

I sincerely hope you're right....and you surely know FAR more about the ins and outs of their operation than I do, so perhaps you are.

But I remain skeptical...at least for now.

[TEPaul]

"Given their history, especially recent, I'd have to say you are giving them WAY too much credit.
Smart and cunning?"

Paul:

Did I mention the terms 'smart and cunning'? I don't think so but you did.  

[Paul Richards]

Tom

>Did I mention the terms 'smart and cunning'? I don't think so but you did.


With obvious sarcasm,

of course.  

[TEPaul]

Daniel:

I sure don't know anything about what they might do on distance or how. I only know that in whatever dealings I've had with them over the years (on other things) they do tend to act in the end but usually about ten years after the fact and generally when they hear a whole lot of voices whispering in the wings. A whole lot!  

I think it's sort of funny how so many on this website tend to treat them like they are a bunch of idiots. I don't think they are that. I think they know perfectly well that this issue could end up being a battle royal between themselves and the manufacturers and I think they realize better than most of us that the day will ultimately be won for one or the other of them depending on which way the American golfer tends to go and want to go. This whole issue is coming down to that sooner rather than later, I think, and I think both the USGA and the R&A understand that full well.

In my opinion, it's not the best thing for any of us to with-hold our membership contributions to them. I think the best thing to do is get as many of us golfers behind them as we possibly can and tell them we really do want a roll back on distance. As you and I both know not as many golfers as we'd like to see support that. Not yet anyway.

[PThomas]

but Tom, it's so hard to be behind them when this issue has been staring at them in the face for SO long and they continue to sit idly by

[TEPaul]

Paul:

Then why do you think they floated this issue that they're seriously looking at what they refer to as 'spin generation' and 'MOI', or were you aware they even did that? Do you think they decided a few months ago that since they didn't have any idea what to do that maybe the best policy would be to float a press release that meant absolutely nothing?  

[PThomas]

no Tom, I was aware that they FINALLY have acknowledged the issue and MIGHT decide to do something about it...but the horse has gotten way far away from the barn and I will not be holding my breath, waiting even longer for them to truly act!

[Daniel_Wexler]

Tom:

I think your sense of things is probably fairly accurate, at least so far as waiting to hear the voices before moving goes -- and to some extent, that's a reasonably understandable position.  But I strongly agree with Paul (and I doubt you disagree) that they've waited FAR too long on this.  From my perspective, they haven't missed this by a few months or yards, they've missed it by a million miles.

I used to just assume that their inactivity was rooted in a fear of the manufacturers, but since Sandy Tatum and Frank Hannigan have both explained how their legal position is relatively unassailable, and since Callaway withdrew that Canadian lawsuit very quickly a few years back, I'm certainly willing to accept a concern with the views of the masses as a main reason for inactivity.  But...

They're getting all the cover they'd ever need from Nicklaus, Palmer, etc., plus the declining number of players and general sorry state of the industry hardly suggests some overwhelming embrace of technology that could severely hurt the USGA if/when they act.  Thus when I hear David Fay talk about "a healthy game" and all that, I must confess that I do take him/them at their word.

I'll tell you this: If I were the USGA, I'd feel far more comfortable from a self-image perspective telling technology addicts that we're here to govern the game as we believe best, not to accommodate their egos (and that they can always use non-conforming equipment if that's their idea of "fun") than have to explain to the entire golfing world -- and to posterity -- why we sat by and did essentially nothing.

But this, quite obviously, is NOT their thinking.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

They're a little late to the dance, don't you think ?

Daniel Wexler,

When a big drive was 180 yards and I was 3-4 clubs shorter, I enjoyed the game just as much as I do now, I just had to navigate the golf course differently.

I can tell you one thing, I interfaced with the architectural features to a much greater degree, which in a sense, made the game far more interesting and dramatic.

Trajectory was one of the biggest problems I had, thus I had to plan my attack and strategy accordingly, and, it was fun.

The short game remains fairly constant in that strength or length don't have a material impact on it.

[A_Clay_Man]

Tom MacW- I'm not sure I see how arguing that someone can enjoy the game that they want to play, as moral relativeism. (using hickories and gutties) If people are so passionate about a rollback, why did Alfie's project fail?

Or,

Are you saying a small radical fringe element knows what's best or the future of golf, and the remainder just needs to shut-up and listen to them??

How does a course like Riviera fit in to your category, where the changes made there are the result of the ownership. Not 15 handicappers desires to boost thier egfos throughj 30 extra yards.

Money talks and the rest can walk, are bigger factors in destroyinng the classic venues you lament.

That will never be the USGA's fault.

[Kenny Lee Puckett]

I have a number of thoughts after reading the entire thread.

#1) From TEPaul:

"That the USGA does not appear to be paying any attention to the protests of the likes of Nicklaus/Faldo/Els and so many other visible and famous golfers today certainly is surprising and disheartening to me as well."  Agreed TEP.  But that statement begs the question:


Why aren't the younger players protesting that the ball is going too far?  They all went through a cycle in their youth to the current day that included 150 yard drives, 60 yard 8 irons, etc.  The game has gotten easier for the elite college player/young touring pro as the have grown up, and not necessarily through technology.  Are they too ignorant or unappreciative of 6,500-7,000 yard classic courses?  

#2) It will be interesting to see the U.S.G.A. test results of the current balls minus 15%, and the U.S.G.A's resulting recommendations.  I'll bet that the low handicapper will want to play what the pros are playing.  (A great business opportunity for the ball makers)

#3)  Did the new ball render St. Andrew's obsolete this year?  The lowest score still won.  The Gutta, steel shafts, the sand wedge, and many other technological advances have been foisted on the cradle of the game, and TOC has more than held its own.

4) If you believe that TOC has held up pretty well over time, especially if we get to a point where the lowest score wins mentality replaces +/- to par thinking.  For the "Par thinkers", let's toughen the standard of par, or eliminate it entirely.  The scratch/expert golfer is scoring better.  It is interesting to note that the U.S. Open courses from 1895-1905 carried no reference to par in the Golfonline.com website.  Today, Tiger's AVERAGING 4.6 birdies per round.  Toughen the standards if -20 over four rounds is threatening the game.  Par 70's from Member Par of 72 is the norm.  Why does par have to be between 70-72/73 in the U.S.?

#5) Green conditioning, maintainance technology and better grasses have created smoother and more puttable greens.  Putters are now fitted with precise lie/loft, length and MOI.  Balls roll truer with Sharpied lines.  Should we reduce the size of the hole to combat improved putting?  (Tongue-in-cheek here - I know that we would have slower rounds, infrastructure replacement costs, etc.).  But it is also the same theory in rolling back the ball and club technology.  Penalize all for the excellence of a very, very small percentage of top players' success.

I know that I have raised a number of issues to a thread that I am late in joining, but I wanted to throw these thoughts in here for comment.

FYI, I dropped the U.S.G.A. Member program when they dropped "Golf Journal."  I miss that publication.

JWK

[T_MacWood]

Adam
What I am saying is the powers-that-be have let equipment get out of hand and it has had a negative affect on golf architecture (which is obviously bad for the game) and negaqtive affect on the game in general, from a cost perspective among other things....I'm not advocating we all go back to hickories and gutties (that was your suggestion not mine), frankly I think that is idiotic.

I'm also saying your oblivious attitude, play with whatever floats your boat...everything is fine, is an example of moral relativity. If it does not affect you directly, there is no problem.

[A.G._Crockett]

The game has gotten easier.

And, the proof is the Senior Tour.

Fifty years ago guys 65 couldn't break eggs let alone par.

Patrick Mucci,
I wouldn't disagree at all about the straightness of the ball being the real problem (distance is more a product of the straightness because of the ability to generate penalty-reduced high swing speedsm, I think), or about the game getting easier, but I'd hesitate to draw conclusions from the Senior Tour.  Careers in other sports have gotten longer as the money has gotten bigger, and golf is no exception.

It wasn't 50 years ago, but Snead won on Tour in 1965 at age 52, made the cut at a Tour event at age 67 in 1979, and finished 3rd at the PGA (Trevino won) at age 62 in 1974.  Most attribute the beginning of the Senior Tour to Snead winning the Legends of Golf event in 1978 at age 66.  Big, big money has caused those guys stay competitive and fit much, much longer than used to be the case.

Having said that, I realize that those guys virtually all say that they are hitting the same clubs into the same greens as they did 20 years ago.  It would interesting to hear a physiologist discuss how much distance should decrease in a golf swing over the years, but it is an open question, I think.  Most agree that while strength declines steadily, flexibility is much easier to maintain.
That, combined with delofted irons in modern sets, may mean that they are as long with the driver (where 90% of the technological improvements are concentrated), but a predictable 2 or so clubs shorter with their irons due to the aging process.  My personal guess would be that their short games are where the greatest drop-offs have occurred.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

i have all the posts very carefully and with great interest.
Issues regarding technology are all very interesting and we all know will not change.
I personally gave up my menbership following the USGA's decision to rid themselves of the games greatest possible advocate ..one ..Jack Vardeman....here was a man who loved the game beyond all possible measures, had the game's best interest ALWAYS in mind and yet was discarded after years of devoted survice.
Mr Vardeman had spent tens of thousands of dollars of his own money to be an active part of the USGA, only for them to basically shit on him..shame on you USGA..for losing the services of a man who probably would have been the greatest leader you have ever had.

[George Pazin]

Thanks for noticing my simple question, Rick.

To Craig, and anyone else who says the USGA shouldn't be more aggressive, I'd simply ask, why does the ODS exist, and should we forever stick with a decision made decades ago under completely different circumstances? Should we not ever revisit this standard?

The very fact that a distance standard exists acknowledges (to me, at least) that there is potential for a real problem if distance in golf is not carefully examined. We've already seen the effects, and it's clear not everyone supports unchecked distance.

[Lou_Duran]

The current USGA newsletter is dedicated to addressing many of the issues on this thread.  The bottom line is that the issues are not so black and white as it may appear to many of us here.  The USGA has a wide constituency, and many of its members do not see the technology issue in the same light as the core GCAers.

I too had thoughts of terminating my modest $50 annual contribution to the USGA over similar concerns.  I've had correspondence with the USGA over the years, and except for the most recent with the current membership director, it has been highly unsatisfactory.

Not typically needing a great reason to keep my hard-earned money in my pocket, arguments advanced by a couple GCAers kept me from discontinuing my support.  These are somewhere in the archives- the USGA and its "arms control" responsibilities have been well documented here- but the crux of the matter is that we can be much more effective from within and that the USGA does so many other things very well.

I urge everyone to read the current newsletter with an open mind.  The issues the writer raises may not be convincing to some of us, but they do provide other points of view which merit consideration.  Unlike my friend Paul Richards who found Geoff Shakelford's book so compelling, I don't believe that we are in such a crisis.

We can remedy the situation immediatley by bifurcating.  And to those who fear that this would splinter the game I can only say that that has been done many years ago.  The pros and touring amateurs play a substantially different game than the rest of us with different equipment and on different courses (due to set up).  The same is also true of every other significant sport.  

[A_Clay_Man]

I'm also saying your oblivious attitude, play with whatever floats your boat...everything is fine, is an example of moral relativity. If it does not affect you directly, there is no problem.

Tom, Is that your perception of my position?

Because if it is, I prefer to see it as being more tolerant of new ideas. Not dictaing to others, what the right way to do things are.

As opposed to all the rollback advocates, from Alan Robertson to Jack Nicklaus, who tell everyone they know, what is right for the game, and others (usga r&a) do not.

George Pazin does bring up an interesting point, when he asked about having the ODS limits placed within the rules. However, that has more to do with any and all increases in knowledge of physics, and not just technology.


So let me ask all of you, Do you think GOLF, as a collective,  should dictate how, or, just ask the question, How many?

[TEPaul]

M-W-P:

You should know, for accuracy's sake, that the USGA did not 'get rid of" Jack Vardamann. I know Jack Vardamann, and I know the circumstances of his departure from the USGA's Board. They did not get rid of him, he simply quit the Board. Obviously he did that for his own reasons, and I'm not saying his reasons were not good ones, at least to him. But the truth is they did not get rid of him, they actually begged him, in a manner of speaking, to stay and run the I&B Committee, which in my opinion (and apparently in other's opinion) he would have been perhaps the best in the land at doing. One of the reasons he may've done what he did is the USGA really did "get rid of" his good friend Eric Gleacher, and obviously he felt that was a very wrong thing to do. But from everything I know the USGA did not get rid of Jack Vardamann. He simply decided on his own to quit the Board. I wish he hadn't done that but I have huge respect for him whatever his reasons were.

[George Pazin]

We can remedy the situation immediatley by bifurcating.  And to those who fear that this would splinter the game I can only say that that has been done many years ago.  The pros and touring amateurs play a substantially different game than the rest of us with different equipment and on different courses (due to set up).  The same is also true of every other significant sport.  

Along these lines, I'd argue that bifurcation already exists. Tiger - and others - go into Nike's - and others' - big $$$ R&D facilities and have his golf ball custom designed for his game.

Can you? I reasonably certain I can't.

[JohnV]

Along these lines, I'd argue that bifurcation already exists. Tiger - and others - go into Nike's - and others' - big $$$ R&D facilities and have his golf ball custom designed for his game.

Can you? I reasonably certain I can't.

If you had enough money I'm sure you could, but since T-shirts don't sell that well you can't.  Perhaps if you offered to only sell Nike shirts they would do it for.

Lou, thanks for pointing out the newsletter.  I had started to do that, but got distracted by, of all things, work.  

The newsletter does do a decent job of explaining things and I think the interesting thing is that almost all the quotes that are shown in large type are ones calling for changes.  Perhaps that is a signal.  (Now I feel like a Kremlin watcher.)

[Mark_Fine]

I have not read through all these posts but I did read the arguement from the USGA in their October Newsletter about holding back technology.  The USGA states that courses like Merion East would not have been built were it not for the introduction of the longer Haskell ball.  They go on to state that John Low commented in 1903 that this new ball would essentially ruin the game because of its added distance.  This all took place right before the golden age of course design.  

[T_MacWood]

"...I prefer to see it as being more tolerant of new ideas. Not dictaing to others, what the right way to do things are."

Adam
I'm tolerant too, I'm just not tolerant of bad ideas. IMO its past time for the powers to dictate us back a few years (a  decade or three).

Mark
You are correct. Really golf as we know it, the widely popular sport and game of numerous interesting venues, did not begin until the early 1900's with the advent of the haskel and the advent of modern golf architecture. It is relatively young sport.

[TEPaul]

Mark:

You make a pretty good point and you use a pretty good analogy for the "dark side" of this argument on distance increase.

The Haskell ball certainly was a hot and controversial issue but today distance increase has gotten to the point where there's another and even more fundamental problem coming into the equation. And that is when a golf ball is out there in flight at around 300-330 a golfer actually has to have a pretty good set of peepers to even see it anymore!!  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()