Frank Thomas Has Spoken

« **Reply #50 on:** August 05, 2005, 06:36:32 AM »

David

As you point out so aptly, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

These guys didn't get it and still don't.

No more USGA checks, please.

« **Reply #51 on:** August 05, 2005, 07:07:04 AM »

While I can certainly understand the frustration that the USGA/R&A has not controlled distance well in the last ten or so years, do the USGA/R&A's critics think the USGA should just get out of I&B testing and rules and regulations? Is that the idea behind cancelling one's membership in the USGA etc? If so what do you suppose the alternative would be?

You say, we'll have a competition ball and that will filter down to the rest of the golfers somehow. Who's going to write the rules and regs for a competition ball? ANGC will do it, you say. Really? Do you expect that ANGC will become the American counterpart to the R&A??

Does the R&A really do any comprehensive I&B testing or have they ever? Basically they depend on the USGA's test center to do that.

People blame Thomas for the distance problem, and accuse him of having his head in the sand about what's happened in the last ten or so years distance-wise. On the other hand, I played a round of golf at Alwoodley in 2003 with a most significant board member of the R&A. Towards the end of the round I asked him what his feelings were on this distance problem. He said to me----"Ah, yes, we've heard that some people are concerned about that."

Jeeesus Christ---if that's the R&A's attitude, it's not as if they're making excuses about what they've been trying to do, it's more like they aren't aware there is a problem.

« **Reply #52 on:** August 05, 2005, 07:21:18 AM »

David Moriarty quoted GeoffShac as the first example of mention of Thomas on this site. I've been talking to GeoffShac comprehensively about this subject from at least that time, probably longer. GeoffShac has always said he thinks the USGA has so shirked their responsibilities in I&B that they should probably just devolve out of it into total irrelevancy that way. But I've always asked Geoff what he thinks would replace them in I&B rules and regulations. Geoff says he thinks a ground-swell may just build up in a grass-roots sense, perhaps along the lines of the phenomenon of soft-spikes etc. Perhaps even out of a competition ball inspired by ANGC.

Is that the kind of defense we want to distance? A groundswell like soft-spikes? If there is no more USGA I&B testing and USGA I&B rules and regulations, whose going to wrtie all those rules and regs and attempt to test and monitor for them? ANGC? The PGA Tours? The manufacturers??? Some independent ground-swell??

I say come up with a better alternative than those BEFORE you recommend the USGA and their testing and rules and regulations devolve into irrelevency.

« **Reply #53 on:** August 05, 2005, 08:05:06 AM »

Tom,

So what do you suggest? Wait another five years and then complain even lounder?

I have no magic cure to suggest. People want clubs and balls that go farther. The manufacturers produce products that meet that demand. The USGA has not done anything that I can see to keep that from happening other than the limit on COR for clubheads. The golf ball appears to be O-tay as far as they're concerned and what the heck, maybe it's all in our minds and a ProV1x doesn't go any farther than a mid-90's Titleist Professional did.

The fact that they are "studying" and "monitoring" golf ball distance is akin to a politician professing his "concern" about a problem that he's done nothing concrete to address. As I see it there are three possibilities:

1) The USGA doesn't think a 2005 vintage $4.00 golf ball travels significantly farther than a $4.00 golf ball on the market on 1995 did.

2) The USGA thinks the ball is going farther but there's nothing they can do about it.

3) The USGA think the ball is going farther but that's good for the game of golf.

Everything I've read attributed to current or former USGA equipment regulators leads me to believe they are sticking with #1 for now. If that's what they believe, they need to show me some testing results leading to that conclusion because it certainly doesn't comport with the anecdotal evidence that we have to work with in the absence of real experimental data.

If I had to make a prediction, it is that no meaningful rollback or even limit against future increases will be implemented as part of the conforming-ball test. If they were able and willing to do it, they'd be doing it. Instead, I think the game in general will be allowed to continue on its laissez faire way as it has for the past decade and various "competition" balls will be specified as a condition of competition at certain levels such as the PGA Tour or perphas elite amateur events. That is total speculation but I think it's a direct extrapolation of recent history and I've seen no evidence to suggest a change is imminent.

« **Reply #54 on:** August 05, 2005, 08:34:21 AM »

Quote from: Tom_Doak on August 04, 2005, 04:28:30 PM

Paul Turner:

You want to take my bet, but change the standard and then only take 1/10 of the bet? No thanks, but my original offer still stands. Maybe Mr. Thomas would like to take me up on it if he's so damn sure that we've seen the end of increased distance.

I guarantee you the engineers at Callaway and Ping already know where their next 5-10 yards are coming from. They are only trying to decide how slowly to roll it out.

Tom

Your bet doesn't address technology alone. So it has little relevance to Frank's comments.

How can you guarantee this?

« **Reply #55 on:** August 05, 2005, 08:40:19 AM »

Using the PGA Tour Driving Distance stat for this debate is borderline laughable. Do all players hit driver on the 2 holes measured each round for that stat? The answer is no. Players are hitting it farther every year and that trend will continue. And improving/new technology will continue to play an enormous part in this trend unless legislation is put in place. In my opinion, anyone who debates the above is simply in denial.

-Ted

« **Reply #56 on:** August 05, 2005, 08:50:23 AM »

Quote from: DMoriarty on August 05, 2005, 02:29:49 AM

For those of you that are still USGA/Frank Thomas apologists, I just did a quick search and the first mention of Frank Thomas on this site was from September, 1999, by Geoff Shackelford, commenting on that year's Ryder Cup . . .

Quote
. . . Because it is fascinating to see the differences from 88 to 99. Yes there was more rough in 88 and more at stake in terms of stroke play. But, to see flip sand wedges being hit in, and duck hook drives carrying the bunkers...hmmm, makes you wonder. And then to pull out some Frank Thomas quotes from recent years and be told that we are imagining such things about the distance the ball is going and be told that there is just a little change in recent years, well it's insulting.Geoff

. . . and while the USGA may have stayed somewhat constant since 1999, but the golf equipment hasnt.

How much has the distance increased since 1999?

From what I can see, there's a single quantum jump from moving from a wound ball.

Should Thomas be held accountable for that?

« **Reply #57 on:** August 05, 2005, 09:12:23 AM »

Brent:

The USGA has never been quick to act on most any I&B situation, but that doesn't mean they never will. A part of that may be the R&A is not just not quick to act they're pretty tough to wake up on some of these I&B issues. The USGA does feel they need to act on I&B in concert with the R&A--hence the fixing of the COR fiasco when the R&A said they didn't think there was anything to that for about five years and just chose to ignore it and not agree to that COR I&B reg change.

It looks to me as if the USGA is doing some real prep work on ball analysis (their $10 million dollar project begun a year or so ago) and club torque as well as floating some rules and regs parameters to the manufacturers to consider (drawback of a ball by 10% or so). If one wants to try to estimate where the USGA is coming from one should look carefully at that USGA/R&A Joint Statement of Priniples quote I posted that was written about two years ago. That is a fairly vast change in their position certainly on the effects of athleticism on distance. If they aren't even thinking of doing anything I can't imagine why they wrote that. And then there's the whole area of "notice and comment" which I'm not sure all that many on here understand the ramifications of that well---legally and otherwise.

« **Reply #58 on:** August 05, 2005, 09:28:20 AM »

This discusion is a lot of emotional hot air, IMHO.

Shotlink will give us data on EVERY shot hit at every tour stop. That's EVERY shot from tee to green. Real data can then be examined and rules and regulations can be developed based on real data.

In the meantime, who cares how far SOME pro's hit the ball? That is only one factor influencing scoring on the tour.

Whenever this discusion comes up I think people react emotionally and that leads to bad decisions, such as narrow fairways, higher ruff, faster greens,longer golf holes. Heck, I bet there isn't a greens committee in the country that hasn't had this discusion at their course, even though 95% of their membership can't break 85. In most cases the new technology allows the average player to play with some measure of success...in other words, straighter drives, a little less loss of distance, balls with out huge "smiles" in them after a poorly struck iron, etc. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

« **Reply #59 on:** August 05, 2005, 09:31:43 AM »

"Players are hitting it farther every year and that trend will continue. And improving/new technology will continue to play an enormous part in this trend unless legislation is put in place. In my opinion, anyone who debates the above is simply in denial."

Ted:

On what are you basing your statement that the trend in distance will continue every year? Do you know more about I&B technology than Frank Thomas?

New and improving technology will continue to play an enormous part in the trend of distance increases like we saw in the last ten years?

New legislation? The USGA has redone their ODS legislation and they do have the ability to deem anything that does not conform to ODS regulations what they call "non conforming". There is such a thing as the "Conforming Ball" list, for instance. That would sort of presuppose that a golf ball that is not on that list is "non conforming". Historically the USGA has not been all that shy about deeming balls and equipment "non conforming".

I realize that most people who are shocked by recent distance have a sort of a Nike slogan mentality about it ("Just do it") and they probably aren't that aware of the details and technicalities that go into some of that legislation---the entire "notice and comment" period being one of them.

Personally, after numerous threads on this subject I don't believe that many on here really understand the history of how this recent distance spike did evolve. Most of those past threads have discussed that but some just don't seem to want to acknowledge it. They just seem to assume that if the USGA hasn't done anything right now--today---they never will.

« **Reply #60 on:** August 05, 2005, 09:36:30 AM »

Craig,

If the PGA Tour would actually showed me the damned ShotLink data I'd love to see it. Instead, all I ever see is cobbled-up hashes of out of context stats intended to look cool and impressive. The discussion will always be hot air without data. Yet the years comes and go without any public disclosure of whatever data is out there.

Tom,

I'd be much more sanguine about the whole thing if the USGA would share even some tidbits of preliminary findings. I don't expect them to predict the future, just publish their interpretation of what's been happening over the past five or ten years w.r.t. distance. I can certainly be convinced that the anecdotal evidence leads us to overstate the distance gains. But breezy dismissals by Frank Thomas or whomever with absolutely no data to back it up are just as much hot air as the "sky is falling" cries you hear on this forum and elsewhere.

« **Reply #61 on:** August 05, 2005, 10:22:17 AM »

"Tom,

I'd be much more sanguine about the whole thing if the USGA would share even some tidbits of preliminary findings. I don't expect them to predict the future, just publish their interpretation of what's been happening over the past five or ten years w.r.t. distance. I can certainly be convinced that the anecdotal evidence leads us to overstate the distance gains. But breezy dismissals by Frank Thomas or whomever with absolutely no data to back it up are just as much hot air as the "sky is falling" cries you hear on this forum and elsewhere."

Brent:

I agree with you that it would be a good thing if the USGA did publish their interpretation of what's been happening in not just the last five years but for close to twelve years now. Frankly, some of us know just about precisely what happened and those threads in the back pages explain that. But for the USGA/R&A to explain all that would be an admission that they lost control of the I&B process in a distance increase way and that would be an admission on their part that they made some mistake. We all wish they would admit that because frankly it would be an honest and probably benefical thing to do at this point but I guess that's just not human nature. I've had these conversations with Frank Thomas and he not only told me what he thinks the increase was but he broke it down into the percentage increases between the ball, the club and optimization. He wasn't denying anything and he also explained why he thinks the USGA didn't embrace some of his recommendations for legislation (Thomas's recommendations for COR limitation is part of the record). His warnings to the board about the propect of a distance spike due to the new combination ball is far more hazy and contentious).

Why doesn't the USGA share some tidbits with you and us on their preliminary findings on their recent multi-miillion dollar ball test? Probably because they want to be sure about what they're finding and what can be done about it before they dump a lot of information on the public that probably won't understand it anyway.

The manufacturers don't like things being done that way, that's for sure, because it doesn't give them the framework to comment which is what the official "notice and comment" period is all about anyway. I don't believe the USGA wants to float preliminary information through the "notice and comment" process anyway. I think they'd probably rather be as sure as possible they're right about what they may be finding.

« **Reply #62 on:** August 05, 2005, 02:15:22 PM »

Tom

Having read your responses, I understand that you are friends with Frank, and, thus, feel the need to defend his 'honor'.

However, he was the guy at the wheel when the Titanic hit the technology iceberg, so he has to take some responsibility in the matter.

That being said, it's obvious that the R & A won't be the ones to lead - that job is left to the USGA. For this reason, I hope my lack of renewal of dues and my note left someone with an impression at the USGA that I do not condone their handling of these matters and that, hopefully, all of us who haven't renewed will make a big enough dent in the coffers that they have to take notice.

It's probably fighting the windmills, but I refuse to support an organization that has lost such credibility with my hard-earned funds.

« **Reply #63 on:** August 05, 2005, 02:37:20 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on August 05, 2005, 09:31:43 AM

"Players are hitting it farther every year and that trend will continue. And improving/new technology will continue to play an enormous part in this trend unless legislation is put in place. In my opinion, anyone who debates the above is simply in denial."

Ted:

On what are you basing your statement that the trend in distance will continue every year? Do you know more about I&B technology than Frank Thomas?

New and improving technology will continue to play an enormous part in the trend of distance increases like we saw in the last ten years?

New legislation? The USGA has redone their ODS legislation and they do have the ability to deem anything that does not conform to ODS regulations what they call "non conforming". There is such a thing as the "Conforming Ball" list, for instance. That would sort of presuppose that a golf ball that is not on that list is "non conforming". Historically the USGA has not been all that shy about deeming balls and equipment "non conforming".

I realize that most people who are shocked by recent distance have a sort of a Nike slogan mentality about it ("Just do it") and they probably aren't that aware of the details and technicalities that go into some of that legislation---the entire "notice and comment" period being one of them.

Personally, after numerous threads on this subject I don't believe that many on here really understand the history of how this recent distance spike did evolve. Most of those past threads have discussed that but some just don't seem to want to acknowledge it. They just seem to assume that if the USGA hasn't done anything right now--today---they never will.

Tom,

Your points are well taken.
And I understand that my arguements/ideas aren't very meaningful without facts and physics to back them up.

I hope that Mr. Thomas is correct. I'd like to see the ability for players to increase their distance reigned in over the coming years, I just don't believe that will be the case.

-Ted

« **Reply #64 on:** August 05, 2005, 02:51:43 PM »

Paul:

Look, if someone is just looking for someone to blame over this distance incresase then go ahead and blame Frank Thomas because he was there for 26 years. Most on this board are just looking for someone to conveniently blame. They don't really care to go into the details of what really happened. They don't even seem to care to look at the manufacturers for what they are and what they've become on this issue---"Oh don't blame them, they're only in the business of making money, why should they care?" Why should they care? They should care if they're interested in sustaining the game that creates the business that sustains their businesses and them!!

Frank's not exactly a friend of mine I've just been able to get to know him over the years and particularly since he left the USGA. I like him, he's a great guy, he's tough and he seems in no way bitter about what happened to him or what people say about him now. Karsten sued him personally for about $10 million dollars. Frank didn't care even though he thinks Karsten was crazy to do something like that.

It's not that easy to go into all the details of this on here because I know a number of people who are on and were on the Board of the USGA and I really don't feel like pissing any of them off on here anyway. They don't see what happened the exact same way Frank does.

No one I've ever met in all this says Frank was not a great scientist--not even the ones who had some issues with him within the USGA. Obviously Frank felt if he was the technical director and they hired him to give them technical advice and recommendations of how to protect the game in I&B, particularly distance, that maybe they should listen to what he was telling them about technology and its impact and accept the recommendations he was making.

Well, obviously it didn't quite happen that way. Some disagreed----"Oh Jesus, we're gonna get sued, we're gonna get this or that" or "How do we really know that Frank's right?" or whatever.

Some within the USGA obvioiusly felt Frank didn't give them enough information while on the other hand Frank said if he had it all to do over again he realizes he probably should've just tried to be like a total school teacher to these revolving people so they'd have a better idea about what he was talking about. In reality Frank probably felt if they gave me this job then they should probably take my advice on these issues.

Things were contentious from within that way for years and years actually.

What I'm sure you must see I'm trying to say here Paul, is that in my opinion, if Frank Thomas had been the one actually making the decisions on the advice he was giving we would not HAVE A DISTANCE PROBLEM TODAY.

Would the USGA have gotten sued? Sure, they probably would have. He didn't care---his job was to give them the advice that would protect the game. His job was not to worry all day long about whether or not they got sued.

Furthermore, it's certainly my strong feeling that had the USGA gotten sued for formally deeming something 'non-conforming" totally within the known process of their I&B rules and regs and their "notice and comment" procedure, with the proper defense (which is actually remarkably simple) and perhaps a good lawyer there is virtually no way the USGA would ever lose an equipment law suit. Given that it probably wouldn't take any of the manufacturers long to realize there is no real reason to sue them on this issue---eg it'd just be a constant waste of time and manufacturer money.

« **Reply #65 on:** August 05, 2005, 03:01:12 PM »

A point I've been trying to make in this thread, perhaps buried among other issues, is that in today's world I don't think it is likely that the USGA will implement meaningful restrictions on golf ball distance increases. If they do implement them, not only would I expect them to be sued I think there would be wholesale rejection of the USGA's legitimacy to deem balls as conforming to the Rules of Golf or not.

Everyone from the high school kids to the 60-year-old club member playing on weekends thinks that they want distance more than anything else. And they think that today's golf balls are giving them at least a little piece of the distance increases that are seen among the elites. They will not care to have that taken away from them and they will side with the manufacturers and their lawsuits and PR and marketing.

People who worry about the effect of increases distance on golf courses are a miniscule minority.

« **Reply #66 on:** August 05, 2005, 03:11:24 PM »

Brent:

I've been making that same point on these threads on this issue on here for at least five years now. I have or had a potential solution for that problem but no one really seems to care to discuss it. It's just a lot easier to blame the USGA or Frank Thomas for what happened and that nothing has been done today and just leave it at that. Nobody seems to care to look at this issue from the USGA's perspective, and obviously devolving into total irrelevency on I&B in the game of golf is something they have to consider. I think they are considering it. I just don't think they are remotely doing the right things right now to solve that potential dilemma of irrelevency in this way. Ever hear us talk about the analogy to what happened to tennis about 35-40 years ago. This is it.

« **Reply #67 on:** August 05, 2005, 04:12:24 PM »

Many people don't know which advertiser to believe (as to distance, spin, etc,) in all the present ads, don't have a USGA handicap, don't play in tournaments, and are looking for the best price.

They are paying $10 for Noodles and are just happy to get to play.

They are waiting for their favorite ball, like a Precept Laddie, to go on sale because there is a new Laddie coming out soon, or already has.

They don't have a handicap, don't see the need for a handicap, and don't want to spend $25 to join an association to get a handicap.

Those enthusiasts who have to play the latest and greatest, my opinion, will go along with whatever is done IMO. The real competitors will go with whatever is done IMO, as long as it makes sense.

The majority will not worry too much about it. They will still play. However, if I have misjudged the supply of golf balls at Walmart or the cost to change the ever changing materails and layers and cores of a golf ball, and Noodles or Precepts or Topflites go up to $30, then all hell will break loose.

If the majority lose 5 -10 yards (for example) swinging at 90 mph, they will never know the difference.

If USGA makes their case (to the public), I don't think they will be rejected.

USGA rejected the beloved, absolutely beloved Ping irons,from just one manufacturer, and there were no problems with public loss of faith in USGA. The cavity backs Pings were absolutely loved by all and had been for years.

USGA rejected some Callaway drivers on the basis of COR, for goodness sake. A term that had to be explained in very newspaper article. No loss of credibility with public IMO.

If USGA makes their case to the public, who see Tiger driving 400 yard holes on TV, who understand from TV that ANGC is lengthened every year, I do not think the public will abandon the USGA.

They might not worry about distance, but they will understand.

It is for the good of the game just like Ping, Callaway, etc. were in the past. They will understand.

The public, in my opinion, will look at this in the broad overall sense, and not in the complicated digestion of yardages.

And they won't worry about who to blame or anything else.

The public will just drive on, using a different ball, of course.

« **Reply #68 on:** August 05, 2005, 04:18:26 PM »

In general, my expectations tend to be more cynical than reality would dictate. I hope in this case that's true and John's take on the matter is borne out.

« **Reply #69 on:** August 05, 2005, 04:29:28 PM »

Tom

>Look, if someone is just looking for someone to blame over this distance incresase then go ahead and blame Frank Thomas

I'm not blaming Frank.

It is the entire institution of the USGA that has failed the game of golf.

There's plenty of blame to go around at Far Hills.

« **Reply #70 on:** August 05, 2005, 05:47:30 PM »

Quote from: redanman® (for Q) on August 05, 2005, 05:17:28 PM

Of note, at a Matt Ward sponsored seminar at Forsgate almost 3 years ago now, Frank Thomas said to us that in his opinion the equipment had about 5-10 more yards left in it, mostly from the shafts.

Of the contributors to the distance gains in the last 3 yrs, shaft improvements are a distant 3rd behind driver heads (weighting, COG, spin rate changes) and balls (spin and trajectory).

Also, shaft improvements have zero to do with gains on iron carry distances. The old standby-- the Dynamic Gold -- is still the most-used iron shaft on tour.

« **Reply #71 on:** August 05, 2005, 06:08:20 PM »

John Stiles,

Great post (and previous comments on this thread ) and, IMO, dispels all the scaremongering of the consequences of the ruling bodies getting off their butts, getting brave, and perhaps getting the backing of affiliated golfers (worldwide) by instituting either the rollback OR the Comp Ball ?

...........

The R & A IS doing something - they're building their own test centre !

Brent said ; "A point I've been trying to make in this thread, perhaps buried among other issues, is that in today's world I don't think it is likely that the USGA will implement meaningful restrictions on golf ball distance increases. If they do implement them, not only would I expect them to be sued I think there would be wholesale rejection of the USGA's legitimacy to deem balls as conforming to the Rules of Golf or not."

Question ; Has it ever been lawfully illegal to make and produce non conforming I&B as set by the rules of golf ?
.........

Brent said ; "People who worry about the effect of increases distance on golf courses are a miniscule minority."

I totally agree with that statement. But was there ever a majority "won over" through apathy ? Golfers ARE being educated into the implications and effects of technology via columnists and individuals such as we here (some of us, at least) on GCA.com. The last thing "the sport" needs is bitching at the ruling bodies or people like Frank Thomas. I believe that affiliated golfers would get behind the ruling bodies if they decided to turn this whole mess around. But that needs action, information leading to education, and a little honesty which has been amiss for far too long !
At the risk of being naive, I believe a move IS on with the ruling bodies ? And you can rule out the comp ball until the "Joint Statement" is re-drafted ?

Alfie

« **Reply #72 on:** August 05, 2005, 06:22:32 PM »

TEPaul,

You're correct in one sense, the USGA must be the ones to address the distance issue, without them a void that would result in a feasting frenzy amongst the manufacturers would occur.

While many have been critical of the USGA's handling of the distance problem, those that want them removed haven't come up with a viable alternative that would insure results.

On the other hand, I understand those wishing to withhold their dues.

The dilema is akin to tipping your server for terrible service.

It sends the wrong message.
It implies that you approve of their conduct, and that they can continue with that conduct, expecting the same reward.

I thought Paul Richard's response was a reasoned reply.
He's sending them a note telling the USGA that he's not tipping, that he's not satisfied with their service and that he feels they need to address specific issues, before he'll be contributing.

Unfortunately, deprivation of funds may be the only way to get one's message across.

« **Reply #73 on:** August 05, 2005, 06:42:59 PM »

Quote from: Paul_Turner on August 05, 2005, 08:50:23 AM

How much has the distance increased since 1999?

From what I can see, there's a single quantum jump from moving from a wound ball.

Should Thomas be held accountable for that?

Paul the point is that every year since 1999 or before we have the same conversation-- USGA apologists pretend like nothing is changing or we are reaching a point where no more change is possible. How many years must pass before we discard this argument and do something abour the problem?

Change from 1999?

I dont have the change since 1999, but here is the change just since 2002, which I believe is post ProV:

PGA
Dist.
Rank 2005(today) 2002
1 318.3 306.8
25 296.6 288.8
50 291.7 285
100 286.7 280
150 280.2 274.9

« **Reply #74 on:** August 05, 2005, 07:10:32 PM »

John Stiles said:

"It is for the good of the game just like Ping, Callaway, etc. were in the past. They will understand.
The public, in my opinion, will look at this in the broad overall sense, and not in the complicated digestion of yardages.
And they won't worry about who to blame or anything else.
The public will just drive on, using a different ball, of course

"

John:

Of course the public will just drive on. That's not the real issue that may be before us. What if the manufacturers completely reject the USGA/R&A's rules and regulations on I&B?

What then? Then it will become a contest between the manufacturers and the USGA of who the golfing public will follow---eg the USGA's rules and regs on I&B conformity or the manufacturers who will sell them anything they fell like? That has never happened before, at least not at all in any meaningful way. That's the problem this might come down to if something is not done first between the manufacturers and the USGA/R&A. In my opinion, they need to sit down and discuss together with the other interested entities of golf (including the public if they wish to listen) where they want this game to be with it's balls and impliments and architecture in 5, 10, 15, 50 and 100 years.

It's time to stop discussing who was to blame and time to start discussing how the game can be preserved somehow in the future before they all to do it what the burgeoning professional entities did to tennis's USLTA (or what the USLTA did to themselves in that crossroads time) which was to virtually destroy amateur tennis as it used to be.

Is the end coming for the two amateur organizations who've controlled and monitored the way the game of golf is played and with what balls and implements from practically the game's organized inception? It may be. To prevent that there seems to be a lot of work to do.

News:

Paul Richards

TEPaul

TEPaul

Brent Hutto

Paul_Turner

Ted Kramer

Paul_Turner

TEPaul

Craig Sweet

TEPaul

Brent Hutto

TEPaul

Paul Richards

Ted Kramer

TEPaul

Brent Hutto

TEPaul

john_stiles

Brent Hutto

Paul Richards

Kevin_Reilly

Alfie

Patrick_Mucci

DMoriarty

TEPaul