[Geoff_Shackelford]

Patrick,
If the audience wasn't limited before Golf Journal's demise, it certainly will be now based on reports of a rapidly declining USGA membership base.

Furthermore, lets save the content of Golf Journal debate for another thread and ask another question.

I think most here agree that the biggest problem for the USGA right now is on the communications front. What better platform than Golf Journal to educate devoted and vocal golfers in the sport about technology, architecture, the rules, tradition, etc... But it's gone now and the devoted golfers are also leaving the organization (and have been in droves for 3 years now). This mass departure adds up financially and worse, makes a statement to manufacturers that the USGA has lost many allies in the form of supportive members.
Geoff

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Pat,
I remember when David Suskind said that! IN fact, it is a famous quote isn't it?

I recently went and saw the Bill Maher HBO show being taped, and it was really interesting because given that it is a show about politics, and that it is taped live with no canned laughter they send a comedian out to prep the audience before hand-giving them candy and making them laugh--you know, little gifts or treats, and laughter. What else is the best way to enjoy life? With fun and laughter!

They also mention how important it is to the show--to make it work--that the audience be into the guests and topics, and to laugh at all the jokes whether you get them or not. All of that hooting and holloring you hear on the program is the audience who have been inspired to do so. So yes, I think your analogy is a good one.

And that was what the Golf Journal was to all USGA members, it was the treat that the USGA provided to encourage membership, and a positive of what their membership meant to them. How sad it had to be a victim of a budget cut.

I myself have heard a great many people complain of what they are now NOT getting in regards to their USGA membership. These are people that don't frequent this website, and are just regular, everyday golfers with minimal interest in the workings of the activity, and they have asked me why, hoping I could tell them a reason why the Golf Journal no longer existed.

So, its like going to the Bill Maher show without being prepped to be excited and loud and laughing at all the jokes, and without the treats.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Geoff,

I happened to like "Golf Journal" but, if its distribution was limited, how effective could it be as an educational tool ?

If "Golf Journal" had merely been re-formated, and put on the internet, the new medium, which reaches millions worldwide, that would seem to make it a more effective educational tool, and would have probably increased "circulation" dramatically.

Preserving the content, but shifting the medium for distribution would seem to have been the more prudent decision.

Tommy Naccarato,

So, canned laughter can be produced with man's hands not machines, sounds like we've come full circle on audiences and bunkers  

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Patrick,
You missed my point. A membership got you the magazine. A big membership total and the revenues from that made the USGA strong are akin to a commercial magazine repeating great benefits from a huge PAID circulation because it solidifies their place with advertisers and brings in money from subscribers.

A visit to the Internet site is free. The USGA derives no money from an online site because you don't need to be a member to look at their site. Subscriber services have not proven reliable yet. The USGA had subscribers but now it's losing them at a stunning rate. Will they get them back with a site accessible only to subscribers/members? Doubtful.

From my point of view, why give up on something that could still work financially or from a communications/show of strength point of view, in favor of something unproven, especially when the membership was built around Golf Journal? It was the prime motivation most had for joining and still an effective tool for making the USGA's case, much more effective than a web site.
Geoff

[Patrick_Mucci]

Geoff,

I understood your point, and agree with it to a large degree.

However, the USGA could have put "Golf Journal" on the internet, simultaneously with their printed version, until the jury was in, accomodating subscribers with a password for access.

Ignoring the internet wouldn't be prudent either.

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Patrick,

Now that's a great idea about doing both with a password. Why didn't they think of that?!  It would have been a more natural transition and might have kept more members around, though I still contend that for feature articles and photography, there is nothing like a printed publication.

Well, perhaps behind closed doors this was all discussed and perhaps many were against this significant change.

Or could it be that certain folks on the Executive Committee do not have a business relationship with an internet service provider?  
Geoff

[Norbert P]

What does Geoff like?

  I think Geoff likes for people to examine the game of golf;  its history, its direction as communicated by the governing bodies, it's potential greatness and it's creeping demise.  
Could he be the Tim Russert of Golf?

[DMoriarty]

Shivas:

Question to all of us -- what do you care if other people play with the latest equipment?  If you don't like the game with booming 300 yard drives and 185 yard 7 irons, then DON'T PLAY IT!  Hit your persimmon and blades.  DON'T buy the ProV1x.  Play the up tees.  . . .

Look, I'm not changing my equipment.  I like hitting it far.  I like reaching par 5's in 2 and not being petrified by the phrase "451, par 4".  But if you feel differently, then it's up to YOU to do something about it, not the USGA.  I think the competition ball idea is silly.  Either you roll it back for everyone, or you let the pros hit it 320 and score low.  
And if you're worried about land costs and maintenance costs, play at a short course.  These costs only affect YOU if you play a long course.  Lord knows, there are plenty of short courses out there.  A buddy of mine just shot 129 at a local muni we grew up on as kids in an event over the weekend.  So what?  To me, that's great.  The course is short, and he tore it up.  So what's the problem?  

Shivas, this isnt about your game, your distance, your equipment, or where you choose to play.  This is about Golf Course Architecture.  And, bottom line, the increase in technology is having a very detrimental effect on golf course architecture, both old and new.  Our great courses and our contemporary courses are being damaged, and the damage will only worsen if something is not done.

Also, while I agree with you that we all play the same game, we are reaching a point where we are not playing it on the same courses.  How can an architect accomodate both a player who drives it 170 and a player who hits it twice as far?   What's an architect to do?  Build  600 yard par 4s with tee boxes all the way up to the 300 yd marker?  Hard to balance the strategic interests on a hole like that.  
_________________________


The quote was a screw up on my part.  It should read:

"Isnt it about time that we all moved beyond the fiction that the last decade's incredible increases in distance have had more to do with the work ethic of athletes than with the equipment?"

My screw-up.

[DMoriarty]

All I'm saying is that the hands that hold the grip of the kryptonite shafted beta ti 400 cc (isn't anybody else a little surprised that golf club sizes are starting to approach what used to be a decent sized motorcycle engine?) driver are HUMAN.  The hand that tees up that superball is HUMAN.  And these people are making choices.  The other thread asks "if they hold the solheim Cup in the forest and nobody is there to see it...".  Well, what I'm saying is that if they make drivers balls that let you hit it 500 yards and nobody plays them, then where's the damage?  I'm saying that they're only damaged if the player makes them damaged.

And let's just assume that there is damage.  Who is responsible for that damage?  I lay it at the players' feet, not the manufacturers.  Then again, I don't blame Phillip Morris or Seagram's for people's smoke or booze problems, either.    That's my point.

No step missed at all.  

1.  Unfortunately Shivas, most view the game like you do-- We wont give up our big hitting equipment unless and until the big hitting equipment becomes unsanctioned/illegal.

2.  The humans building/modifying courses are catering to their customers, who wont let go of the big hitting equipment unless and until the big hitting equipment becomes unsanctioned/illegal.

3.  It has nothing to do with blame.  I dont care who is at fault.  It just doesnt matter.  I care about fixing the problem.  And the problem won't go away unless and until the big hitting equipment becomes unsanctioned/illegal.

[DMoriarty]

or people take responsibility for their actions and -- heaven forbid -- actually act upon their beliefs....?

Shivas your position is a lame cop-out and nothing but a way to never do anything about anything.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

DMoriarty,

I think you hit on a critical issue,
How can an architect present the same, or similar challenges, to a golfer who hits it 160 and another who hits it 320 ?

Creating different tees doesn't address the totality of the problem, and creating identical features in each golfers drive zone is impractical, and creating the same approach shot is impossible.

The disparity needs to be compressed.

[DMoriarty]

Patrick, I never thought I would say this, but we are in total agreement.  

I see this distance disparity as the single most damaging consequence of the expanding technology.  It is simply becoming impossible for people hitting various lengths to enjoy the same course.  

[TEPaul]

"I think you hit on a critical issue,
How can an architect present the same, or similar challenges, to a golfer who hits it 160 and another who hits it 320?"

Patrick;

Why do you make that assumption? How golf architecture relates to various golfers is uniquely different. You really are an architectural egalitarian, aren't you? Is this what inspires your rampant anti-biasism?

[DMoriarty]

Shivas, I think you are again mistaking the world of golf for that strange utopia of yours where Lochner is still law and every 8 yr old has a right to sell him/herself into slavery . . .

But back to golf . . .

How are you harmed because somebody ELSE's golf ball goes 320 on a 7700 yard course if you stick to Rustic and play persimmon and balata?  How?  

I dont care whether I am harmed, I care whether golf course architecture is harmed.  Let me draw an analogy.

Carts.  When people started riding in carts, golf architecture changed.  Some think for the better; I think for the worse.; but there is no question that it changed . . . .

Does it hurt me if others ride in carts?  Nope, not immediately.  But over time it certainly has changed my options.  When I try to find a nice warm vacation spot where my wife can sit on the beach and I can walk 36, I come up empty more often than not.  The courses dont allow walking, and for good reason.  

And, it changes peoples' attitude toward golf.  They get so used to riding in carts that they forget they can walk.  Played in a skins game yesterday with a young pro who decided to walk after seeing that I was walking.  It had been so long that he had forgotten what a joy it was.  Like his first taste of ice cream . . .

The more the attitude changes, the less architecture there is for us hoofers.  So it does matter.  Same thing with distance.

[DMoriarty]

There is a shortage of quality 6500 yard courses which dont want to get longer or otherwise trick themselves up to control distance.    

NO, not the same thing at all.  Carts changed architecture.  Fine.  But they changed it on NEW courses and courses that CHOSE to adapt to them.  

 This statement is completely pointless, unless I am really missing something.  Length changes NEW courses and courses which CHOOSE to modify.  

You started out talking about how we all play the same game.  But now you have us playing different courses of different lengths with different equipment and different shots.  Hardly the same game.  What gives?  

[Norbert P]

 We vote and ratify golf course success with our wallets but I've never seen a ballot with a "Comment" section.  Thus, here we are.

"We've gone from government by the corrupt few to government by the ignorant masses."  some old guy said it 200+ years ago when America was formed.

"Novus ordo seclorum"  

Geoff, keep the lighthouse candle burning.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Why do you make that assumption? How golf architecture relates to various golfers is uniquely different. You really are an architectural egalitarian, aren't you? Is this what inspires your rampant anti-biasism?

Perhaps a good example would be the 1st hole at NGLA and the alternate methods of play envisioned by CBM.

Do you really believe that he designed that hole as a par 3 ?

Do you really believe that he designed # 2 as a par 3 ?

Did you know that the green at # 11 was almost driven recently, with the tee shot carrying the road.  Do you think he designed that hole as a par 3 ?

What about # 14 and # 17, do you feel he designed those holes as par 3's ?

That's what they are all becoming.

I played in a member guest recently with a young man, probably mid to late thirties, possibly early 40's, who was a member of Winged Foot.  He hit shots, never dreamed of by the likes of Ben Hogan, Sam Snead, Billy Casper, Arnold Palmer, and Jack Nicklaus  He wasn't bigger or stronger then George Bayer, Mike Souchak or Frank Stranahan, but he hit it in a manner that none of them ever dreamed of.

When an individual hits a driver and a five iron on a 530 yard par 5, he evades all of the features that the architect intended for him to encounter, and that is where you are missing the point.  The features that the architect intended for the golfer to confront are being ignored, aerially avoided.

So how do you design a course today, for that player, and a 24 handicap who hits it 160 yards ?  

The dilema is real and the disparity needs to be compressed.

[DMoriarty]

Shivas,

You refuse to acknowledge that it is all quite a bit more interactive than you describe.  My choices are influenced by what kinds of courses are built and maintained, and the kind of courses that are built and maintained are influenced by the choices that people make.   When there is a major chance such as a 30 yds increase in distance over a short time, courses adjust and golf architecture is permanantly changed, thus I have different choices.  

I dont just  say that architecture is defacto ruined by technology, I tell you how it is ruined-- the Distance Disparity.  

As for your Posner mumbo jumbo, you are forgetting something very important:  GOLF IS A GAME.  It has rules, which are supposed to make the game more enjoyable for those who play.  When those rules are out of whack they should be changed.   This just aint market economics and you have no inaleinable right to play with a 400 dollar kryptonite rocket launcher.  

If you are called for traveling in basketball to you argue that the tyrrany of the referrees has just ruined the game?  

As for your intervening-superceding cause, you again return to the blame game.  I only want to fix the problem.  And you must have your head very deep in a shiny crushed marble bunker to deny that there is a problem.  

I sense that your fear is that the great old courses will be ruined.  I say that if they are not altered, they are not ruined.

Jeez Shivas, what great courses arent being altered??

[TEPaul]

David & Shivas:

Are you two guys friends? I'm just asking because you two get on each other sometimes like two guys called Paul and Mucci! I think I remember reading that you guys play golf together or have but the way it sounds sometimes I wouldn't be surprised to see DMoriarty chased Shivas down a fairway wielding a 2 iron!

[TEPaul]

"Seriously, what you're saying is just another version of the classic "I don't trust the people to make their own decisions so I'll just make them for them because I know better than they do what's good for them" argument that gets the left in trouble every time."

Go for it Shivas--go for it man! Don't let that left wing Californian up for air. Sen Joe McCarthy should've cleaned all those pinko commies outta Hollywood when he had the chance! I expect to see you chasing Moriarty down the fairway with a 2 iron!    

[Dan Kelly]

I expect to see you chasing Moriarty down the fairway with a 2 iron!    

Much more likely some 400-c.c. driver, don't you think?

2-irons are for pussies!

[TEPaul]

"Much more likely some 400-c.c. driver, don't you think?
2-irons are for pussies!"

Sorry Dan, but it's the 400cc drivers that're for pussies--and rich, insecure pussies that unsure of their manhood at that.

[GeoffreyC]

TEP:  yes we are.  We're just Irish!  

Hell- I thought it was because you are both LAWYERS  

[DMoriarty]

Shivas.  

Sound and fury . . . . And yet another complex issue that you can neatly reduce to black and white, left and right.  You are a one trick pony in a two trick rodeo.  

But now that you've agitated yourself into a heavy lather, why dont you head back to the barn and cool down.  Maybe try to look past your pointless politicization to the actual issues at hand.

. . . I'm NOT buying this notion that the great old courses are destroyed by technology.  They're destroyed only in the minds of people who refuse to stand up to technology in concert with their beliefs.

Shivas, you are completely missing the point, yet again.  I will try to type slowly this time so maybe you can follow along.  

Classic courses aren't destroyed "in the minds of people,"  they are destroyed by green committees, architects, sanctioning bodies, architects, shapers, and construction crews.  I am not talking about some theoretical, metaphysical destruction-- architecture lessened because it doesnt play like it used to.   I am talking about actual in-the-dirt alterations--  lengthening, narrowing, smoothing, growing, moving, flattening--  all because decision-makers feel like what they have is no longer relevant.  

As for your pat Libertarian rant, I've heard it all before.  Let me remind you:  The USGA governs golf through a rather elaborate set of rules.  These rules currently include limitations on clubs, balls, and distance.  If you dont want the USGA to have control over your balls, clubs, or game, then go ahead and be a rebel, play by your own rules.  Play with a bazooka for all I care.   But I get a feeling that you are willing to live with the USGA telling you what to do when it comes to equipment.  

All I am saying is that the USGA's rules don't accomplish what they should be accomplishing, and that they should be altered so they do.  If you dont think golf needs rules, go after the USGA, or ignore them.  Dont attack me for trying to get them to tweak their already existing rules.
___________________

To briefly address the rest:

What is the problem?  The problem is that our great courses are being ruined.  The problem is that it is becoming increasingly more difficult to build and maintain courses which can be enjoyed by a variety of players.  The problem is that golf takes too long and costs too much.   The problem is that courses are becoming too long for many to walk.  The problem is that golf cannot afford to completely rebuild all of our courses every couple of decades.

Who is hurt?  Those that value the integrity of the game and its great works of art.  Those that want to play at less than a 5 hour pace.  Those that want to walk.  Those that enjoy interesting golf more than slog golf.  Those who just cant get excited at the prospect of our national championship being played at a course that isnt worth a two hour drive to play.
How is any of this hurting anyone?  Those who pay for the course changes, in the futile hope that the USGA will notice and return them to prominence.  The members at those courses.  

Look Shivas, at the Women's US Open a thirteen year old girl's driving average was within a couple of yards of John Daly's 1992 driving average.   No problem?

[DMoriarty]

I expect to see you chasing Moriarty down the fairway with a 2 iron!    

I'd never catch him.  He'd be in his cart with a cooler and I'd likely be hoofing it with my bag on my back.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()