[ForkaB]

Tom

If you remember the various "competition ball" threads that we have had for the past 3 years, the logic is as follows:

1.  ANGC requires the "competition" ball as a local rule in the Masters Tournament (it's probably something like a Titleist Professional--fully "legal" but 1980's technology.)
2.  Because of the publicity, both Joe Public and elite players give the "new" ball a try
3.  Pros, in the month or so leading up to Augusta, try out the "new" ball too, and maybe play it at some of the Mar-April tournaments.
4.  The experiment "works" and we have a great Master's with some of the old design features coming back into play.
5.  Other Tour events adopt the "local" rule.  Some eleite amateur evengts (The Crump?) adopt it too
6.  Over time a shangri-la emerges whereby most tournament golf is played with unerperforming (but fully conforming) bals (and maybe equipment, too) whilst Joe Public is free to use anything that it legal today (e.g. Sept. 2003).  The arms race is over and golf and its playing fields are the winners.

It could happen, but it would take some vision, some leadership and some cojones, which leaves me pessimistic about the whole scenario.......

[Scott Seward]

I knew my original comments would incite some responses but allow me to conclude by saying this -

Thank you for all the well-informed debate. I realize that most would not agree with everything I was saying (ands let me re-state that I never meant anything personally to Geoff). In a short final summation from my point of view -

- its too early to tell if the RTR was a mistake or not. If they lose money it was a definite mistake. If they break even or make money. live and learn. The original idea of a museum in NYC is good (even if I love Golf House the way it is). The poster who said there are bigger fish to fry is correct - this is a small issue in the grand scheme.

- something must be done about distance but I am still not sure what the best course of action is - I trust the USGA to determine this course.

- I will wait until the end of the year to pass judgement on Golf Journal. I miss it and right now if asked would agree that this was a dumb move. But I will wait until the championship-summary book is distributed to decide.

- I trust and believe in David Fay. He has presided over some explosive growth as well as overseen an expansion in the foundation. I think Frank Hannigan is a curmudgeon and is taking way too many shots at his successor to have credibility. Just once, Frank could say "Boy they got it right on that one," and I would buy into what he is saying a little more.

Geoff - I appreciate your responses especially. Come up to NorCal and look me up at the NCGA offices. Would love to play with you.

[MargaretC]

Scott:

With all due respect, I think you may be too close to some of the individuals within the USGA.  Sometimes personal connections preclude us from being able to accurately assess performance within an organization.

I also think that the "concern" about manufacturer's lawsuits, etc., that's been alleged is a great excuse for inaction on the part of the USGA.  Think about it, Scott, all that talk actually serves manufacturers because if lawsuits are ever filed, tell me that Plaintiff Attys won't cite knowledge of internal discussions within the USGA during which USGA officials "questioned" their right to limit manufacturer's R&D activities to create clubs/balls which generate greater distance, etc.,   The more an individual or group questions their legal right to do something, the more they ultimately restrict their right to do something.

This avoidance has lead the USGA down the road of screwing around with the architecture of way too many golf courses.

IMHO, the USGA has been remiss if they haven't sought input from persons who have expressed criticism of their management style, activities, etc.,  Not that they have to accept criticism as gospel, but reviewing criticism honestly, helps all organizations grow and improve and stay on their mission.  Exclusive belief in your own press will always get you in trouble.    

[ForkaB]

Well said, Margaret

Your last sentence brings nostalgic tears to my eyes in rememberance of all the strategy consulting work I have done with similarly arrogant clients.  One of my old partners used to call it:  "Smoking their own exhaust."

[A.G._Crockett]

The scenarios put forth by Patrick and Darren are attractive and logical.  Unfortunately, the world is often less logical as events play out.  So, here's an alternative scenario:

1. ANGC adopts a competition ball, comparable to the Tour Balata.

2. We find that better athletes, vastly better swing mechanics, perfectly fitted and customized equipment, and perfect course conditions combine to make the scoring for the tournament exactly the same as it had been for the past several years.

3. Other agencies, like the PGA Tour, jump on the bandwagon too quickly, only to confirm that the ball doesn't solve ALL problems at one fell swoop.

4. "Ordinary" players, finding the game to be less fun now because of the choice between non-complying balls and shorter, crookedy balls that cut and cost more, lose interest in either
      a. the Rules of Golf and/or the USGA
      b. golf

I'm not sure why this scenario is any less plausible than the others.

[JohnV]

I don't really think the USGA is afraid of lawsuits by the manufacturers.  They were correct in building a war chest to protect themselves in cas of them, but fear isn't the factor.  When Buzz Taylor launched his attack on clubs at Olympic in 1998, the screams were loud enough that many people around the USGA felt that it would be better to work with the manufacturers than just dictate to them.  Because of this, they have tried for concensus.  They also are trying to work in a way that doesn't make something that they've previously approved illegal.  They are thinking about Joe Golfer who went and plunked down $500 for a driver as much as they are thinking about lawsuits.

For all of those who want the ball that goes a shorter distance, consider that 4 of the 5 guys I played with this weekend hit their driver shorter than I hit my 3-iron (maybe 225 yards).  They don't want a ball that goes a shorter distance.

6800 yards is long enough for 95% of the golfers.  The problem is that some people with more money than brains keep trying to build courses for the other 5% and that is what is raising the cost of golf.  My home course is "only" 6650 from the tips (par 70), but very few players play them, preferring the 6200 yard tees which are what we use for normal men's club play.

[MargaretC]

Rich:

Thanks for your kind words.

Smoking their own exhaust.  

Rich, you've made my day!  I love that line!

I don't know you and I obviously don't know your partner; however, I will think of both of you whenever I think of or use that line!  That's terrific!  

[Dan Kelly]

And the more PERSONAL the exhaust one pictures, the better that line gets!

[A.G._Crockett]

And continuing from my previous post:

Assume for a moment that it IS just the ball (a very shaky assumption):

I cannot for the life of me understand why the USGA is the primary bad guy here for simply continuing to enforce the exact standards that they have had in place for nearly 30 years!  Nobody complained about the standards before, and now the people who are complaining (yeah, YOU!) are doing so while using the latest equipment, the exact balls that you bitch about, and complaining after the round if the course conditions aren't perfect.  In effect, you are asking the USGA to save you from yourself!  The USGA is simply a convenient, slow-moving target.

Furthermore, why isn't the Tour the main culprit in all of this?  The influence of the Tour is such that in EVERY club tournament that I play in, the pro feels the need to inform the players that the "one-ball" rule is not in effect!  There's a quote from Deane Beman early in this thread in which he accuses the USGA of dropping the ball.  What a flaming hypocrite!  Why don't he and Finchem get the lion's share of the blame in all of this, since it is their tournaments and their players that all the fuss is about?

[Patrick_Mucci]

AG Crockett,

# 2 in your premise is flawed, hence the sequential conclusion is flawed.

I believe, as a condition of the settlement of the Ping law suit that the PGA is prohibited from being involvled in equipment issues.

[ForkaB]

Thanks to you, too, Margaret (and Dan)

The BBC is just now running a series presenting modern day versions of the Canterbury Tales.  The first one shown was "The Miller's Tale" which, if you remember your Middle English classes, gives a whole different meaning to my old business partner's catch phrase...........

[MargaretC]

JV:
I don't really think the USGA is afraid of lawsuits by the manufacturers.  They were correct in building a war chest to protect themselves in cas of them, but fear isn't the factor...in 1998, the screams were loud enough that many people around the USGA felt that it would be better to work with the manufacturers than just dictate to them.  Because of this, they have tried for concensus.  They also are trying to work in a way that doesn't make something that they've previously approved illegal.  They are thinking about Joe Golfer who went and plunked down $500 for a driver as much as they are thinking about lawsuits...

With all due respect trying, "...for consensus..." although it may sound like the mature, professional approach, isn't always appropriate.  There are also times that if it were appropriate as an initial step, when concensus fails to yield results, then it must be discarded.

Maybe "fear" is too strong a word; however, your remark indicates that ego more than likely is a big driver.  (Pun not intended!)  

Think about it, the FDA has reversed, on occasion, its approvals on some prescription drugs.  That's life...gain additional information, gain a different perspective, whatever precipitates the change, a decision is made to eat crow, swallow pride, whatever...

"Joe Golfer" sounds more like an excuse for inaction because some "Joe Golfers" choose now to use equipment that is illegal for tournaments/championships.

Clearly, I have neither the knowledge nor insight that you have about golf or the USGA, but in reading your post,  I was instantly struck with the notion that the USGA has "sold" a "cop out" to appear to be a reasoned approach to the challenge they face.  To me it sounds like avoidance, but that's only a gut reaction.  

[DMoriarty]

Mr. Crockett,

Isn't 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 the athletes than the equipment?

You also comment that the USGA shouldn't take all the blame for what has happened over the past decade.  Personally I am less concerned with who should take the blame and more concerned with who is in a position to fix what has gone wrong.

And the USGA is the only organization in the position to fix this mess.  We need different rules, and the USGA makes the rules.  Where else could we turn?  Begging the manufacturers is pointless . . . the Tour doesnt govern my play . . . Joe Golfer isnt a leader, but instead will follow the lead of the USGA (as the ERC situation demonstrated.)  So we are left with the USGA.  

[A.G._Crockett]

Patrick,
I stand corrected.  I should have said "nearly" the same, rather than "exactly."  Thanks for pointing that out.  I think the rest of the sequence then holds up, especially since we're on Fantasy Island anyway.

If the Tour can't legislate a ball as a result of the Ping suit, are you saying that the world will be a better place if a competition ball is used at Augusta, in USGA events, by amateurs in casual rounds, BUT NOT ON THE PGA TOUR?  Isn't that where the problem is anyway?  Or maybe, despite millions of dollars at stake, those guys will decide to play a 1980 ball for the good of the game, like the rest of us will be doing...

What am I missing?

[Tim_Weiman]

MargaretC:

Your comments to Scott Seward are typical of all your posts. Lots of common sense and a pleasure to read!

At best, the USGA is quilty of inaction and/or incompetence. More likely, they have seriously let down the average golfer by allowing the golf technology arms race to get out of control.

It is time for action, not excuses. Runaway technology just makes the game more expensive. Who needs that? Real golfers want to PLAY more not PAY more.

If Scott Seward thinks the USGA is so great, I'm wondering why they aren't alarmed by the misleading nature of Titleist ads mocking golf architects for not wanting to lengthen golf courses. Where is the evidence for this nonsense? Does a place like Whistling Straits - all 7,700 yards - suggest leading architects aren't willing to build longer courses?

Of course not. What I can't understand is how anyone like Scott can defend the USGA's failure to expose the basic flaw in the entire golf technology arms race mentality: that it only raises the cost of playing the game. It doesn't make it better.

Dave Moriarty:

I agree with your suggestion that the USGA should be embracing Geoff Shackelford. Geoff was kind enough to share a draft of his forthcoming book "The Future of Golf". Obviously, I don't want to steal Geoff's thunder and provide details on the book. But, I will say a couple things

"The Future of Golf" appears to be the first serious attempt to address what plagues the modern game of golf, including the USGA's failure to address the technology issue. It should be mandatory reading for every Green Committee and USGA member. Further, I think David Fay should reach out in a statesmen like manner and embrace Geoff and the book. Your suggestion of the USGA sponsoring a speaking tour to promote Geoff's work (and this book) is right on. It is exactly what Fay and the USGA should do.

[Patrick_Mucci]

AG Crockett,

TEPaul is more versed in the Ping lawsuit restrictions on the PGA, but, I believe that they are prohibited from being involved in equipment issues.  I'm not clear on whether they can legislate the adoption of a "competition ball" that exists under USGA guidelines.  I would imagine that if the USGA adopted the "ANGC" ball, that the PGA tour, playing under USGA rules, could adopt that ball.

But, even if they can't, they're not playing the same ball as we are, today.

If they can adopt the "ANGC" ball, great, if they can't, there are those that say, "let the tour play their own tour ball" that meets current USGA specs.

Before we go further we should know and understand the constraints of the Ping lawsuit on the PGA.

TEPaul, where are you when your needed ?

[TEPaul]

"I believe, as a condition of the settlement of the Ping law suit that the PGA is prohibited from being involvled in equipment issues."

Pat:

The PGA Tour is not exactly prohibited from entering into the world of I&B rules and regulations on their own by the PING/PGA tour lawsuit settlement. What happened in that settlement was a five member committee was set up (which still exists) that the PGA Tour has to go to under the PING/PGA suit settlement and present reasons why they wish to enter I&B rules and regs on their own. That committee would apparently then review the reasons and make their own independent recommedation to the PGA Tour--the recommendation then apparently going to the PGA Tour Policy Review board which is made up of a series of tour players.

It was that very committee that I had in mind to regenerate (they're supposed to be made up of the definition of "disinterested" parties) and use for the purpose of bringing all the entities of golf together in a public forum (a convocation) to publicly discuss this distance problem now and in the future and help resolve it. I had in mind to chair the committee--George Bush Sr!

And furthermore Pat, if it ever came to regenerating that committee as an honest broker, mediator, whatever you might want to call them amongst the interested parties of golf (all the worlds tours, the architects (ASGCA and other architect organizations), manufacturers, regional associaiton reps, whomever else needs or wants to be represented and the time then came to ask Pres. Geo Bush Sr to chair the committee I'd probably ask that man that knows him well and who can frankly do anything that needs to be done in the entire world of golf and architecture--that one humble, brilliant, all encompassing man from Austin Texas--one Gentle BEN CRENSHAW!!!

[TEPaul]

One last thing Pat:

If that time comes and BEN does go to see his friend Pres Geo Bush Sr to ask him to chair this important mediating committee it's just fine with me, in the interest on non BIAS and Non-DOUBLE STANDARD if Ben asks TOM FAZIO if he wants to tag along!

That's OK with me provided TOMF sits quietly in a corner and doesn't say a word so we needn't worry about him either contrdicting himself or this entire important issue!!  

[JohnV]

At best, the USGA is quilty of inaction and/or incompetence. More likely, they have seriously let down the average golfer by allowing the golf technology arms race to get out of control.

Tim, the average golfer is happy to be hitting the ball a little further.  As such, I don't think they are being let down by the USGA.

The only golfers who are really gaining any "unfair" advantage from the technology are the professionals and higher level amateurs and they are such a small group I'm not concerned with them.  What I am concerned with in regards to this are stupid owners/clubs that choose to chase that egotistic pleasure of having the pros play their courses by building longer and longer courses when most golfers don't need or want them or the cost of them.

Margaret, the FDA reverses itself on life and death issues.  While I know that many on this forum consider golf to be a life and death issue, it isn't.

Very few Joe Golfers play "illegal" equipment today.  But, if you roll the ball back, a lot more might.  That might be what the USGA fears more than a lawsuits.

Lets say the USGA decides to roll the ball back and the current crop of balls becomes "illegal".  Suppose that Calloway and Titleist choose to continue to make and sell them because that is what their customers want.  People will continue to buy them because they don't want to give up that extra yardage (kind of like heroin sometimes isn't it? )

The only solution to me would be a competition ball which could be dictated at higher levels of play.  Some at the USGA are against that because they don't want "separate rules" for the pros and the rest of us.  I think they are wrong in that regard and in past discussions of this topic, I have proposed a way that players could choose which ball to play and still post scores for handicaps and have competitions.

I look forward to reading Geoff's book.  I agree with a lot of what he says and my only hope is that he offers solutions rather than just pointing fingers at the USGA and people there, which was my original criticism in this thread.

[Robert_Walker]

Geoff,
You are a talented writer, and much better at articulating your ideas than I. However, I find your response to my questions to be vague.
One more question,
Do you actually believe the USGA is less autocratic today than it was 15-20 years ago?

[Tim_Weiman]

JohnV:

I think the average golfer is being hurt because the cost of pursuing absolute length is being obscured. We need to do a far better job explaining to people that when it comes to length "relative" length matters not absolute length.

John, if you can hit longer drives than I can, you deserve to be rewarded. But, a 300 yard drive is no better than a 275 drive if technology rather than skill is behind the difference.

As for Geoff offering solutions, I don't think Geoff is so arrogant as to believe others haven't already pointed to the elephant in the living room. We need to address the technology question and with respect to golf balls I believe there are only two basic solutions: an overall rollback or a competition ball.

Personally I favor the competition ball approach. Moreover, I believe the USGA is living in a dreamworld if they really believe the weekend golfer plays the same game as professional golfers or top ranked amateurs. That simply isn't the case.

No, this issue isn't about somebody coming up with "solutions". It is about leadership and the will to address the problem. Both appear to be lacking at the USGA.

Remember, golfers want to play more not pay more. The trick is to find the right balance of player skill, technology and the the configuration of the playing field to maximize challenge, interest and fun........and do so at the lowest possible cost to people playing the game.

Runaway technology doesn't aid in that cause. The USGA is failing to both admit and to correct the problem.

A competition ball is long overdue.

[Dan Herrmann]

I was just looking thru the Golf Digest Annual from 1969.  Popular balls were the Dot, the Red Max, the Titleist balata, and the new solid core Top Flite.  (This magazine also had colored sand - pink, yellow, and blue, as the next big trend in golf)

Do any of us actually think that today's balls don't go a lot farther than those of the 1960's?  Sure - I love the distance gain, and no design is threatened by my newfound distance.   But pros - male and female, have gained tremendous distance that is threatening our game.  I know for a fact that my tee shots go a lot longer than they did when I was 20 and playing a Dunlop Blue Max with an Austad maple-laminate driver!

Could golf end up becoming tennis-like, with tennis' huge racquets and overpowering service-dominated game (golf's equivalant would be 350+ yard drives and 150 yard wedges, making par 5's just long par 4's)?  I sure don't hope so...

[MargaretC]

The only golfers who are really gaining any "unfair" advantage from the technology are the professionals and higher level amateurs and they are such a small group I'm not concerned with them.  What I am concerned with in regards to this are stupid owners/clubs that choose to chase that egotistic pleasure of having the pros play their courses by building longer and longer courses when most golfers don't need or want them or the cost of them.

Margaret, the FDA reverses itself on life and death issues.  While I know that many on this forum consider golf to be a life and death issue, it isn't.

Very few Joe Golfers play "illegal" equipment today.  But, if you roll the ball back, a lot more might.  That might be what the USGA fears more than a lawsuits.

JV:

I'm a physician and I love medicine and golf "almost" as much as I love my husband and family.  Oops!  Guess I got my "life and death issues" screwed up.    

Also my error about "Joe Golfer" insofar as I thought that some "JG's" used clubs made by Calloway and other mfgs that were considered "illegal" -- an honest error, but my error none the less.

I do see your point about "rolling back" the ball, etc.  However, if the USGA sucked-it-up, took a position and stayed on top of technology, I'm not sure that we'd be in the situation of "rolling back" -- their assessment of approval/disapproval would be more timely.  

In terms of the "stupid owners/clubs" who are building longer and longer courses...  Agreed, but aren't they following, to some degree, the lead of the USGA who apparently feels the need to "tweak" and otherwise screw around with the architecture of a course prior to hosting a championship?

Please do not take these comments as criticism.  I've read many of your posts and respect your extensive knowledge.  My perspective is that of a neophyte and from my position, the USGA has missed way too many opportunities to demonstrate leadership.

Another comment about the stupid owners/clubs, thank heavens, Oakmont has strong leadership.  I have no idea what, if anything, the USGA has dictated to be changed at Oakmont; however, I do know that the leadership of Oakmont is strong enough that they aren't likely to change features of its course unless its consistent with their master plan.

I can appreciate your lack of concern for the small percentage of Pros, etc.  My reluctance in agreement is that too many average golfers see the pro form of golf as being REAL golf.  That, IMO, is a travesty because the way pros play golf (flying over courses), virtually disregards much of the architecture's nuances and opportunities for wonderfully strategic golf.

Tim's comment is great about the issue of "relative" Vs "absolute" length.  Many women have been saying that for years.      

[MargaretC]

 
Thanks to you, too, Margaret (and Dan)
 The BBC is just now running a series presenting modern day versions of the Canterbury Tales.  The first one shown was "The Miller's Tale" which, if you remember your Middle English classes, gives a whole different meaning to my old business partner's catch phrase...........

Thank you, Rich & Dan, I howled.  Be assured, Rich, that I will do my part in perpetuating your former partner's "catch phrase" insofar as I will find the occasion to use it and I intend to share it with physician colleagues -- especially those specializing in GI medicine -- "proctology" among others.    

TimW:

Thank you for your kind words.

Sorry for the "misuse" of the "length" issue.  Seriously, your point was excellent and well taken.  I, however, allowed my "other side" to get the better of me.  

[JohnV]

Tim, My only problem with what Geoff is saying is the way he says it sometimes, not the basic argument.  I'm sure he has alienated people at the USGA because of his style as opposed to his substance.  It is always a lot harder to get your message across when people don't like the way you deliver it.

I believe that the people at the USGA are looking at this issue and considering all the possible ramifications.  Because of that, they are slow to react.  Being slow to react is not always a bad thing as it allows the solutions to be well thought out and not in constant flux.  Also, there is a strong basic desire on their part not to bifurcate the rules.  At this point, I happen to disagree with that desire.

Dan, I'm sure the ball goes further than it did in 1969.  But, it still doesn't go any further than the Overall Distance Standard allows in the Apples-to-Apples test that has been in use for a long time.  But, we aren't using apples anymore, we are using graphite-shafted titanium plated apples and the ball does go a lot further because of that.  Well, the USGA is updating the test to use those new apples.  At the same time, they are saying that with the new apples the ball can't go as far as it appears is possible.  But, they also don't want to take today's balls out of everyone's bags so they won't make any current balls illegal.  So, either today's balls don't go the max or there will be some hot balls out there that are legal.

Margaret, no offence taken to anything you or anyone else has said in this discussion.

If the USGA/R&A made one big mistake it was allowing titanium and other hi-tech metal clubs and graphite shafts.  Put wood (or even steel) headed clubs with steel shafts in the players hands and they wouldn't come near the same distances.

I agree that Oakmont's leadership is one of the few that has managed the changes well.  They kept the primary focus and history of the course at the forefront.  Of course, that was easier since Oakmont was always intended to be the meanest and the toughest.  Courses that started out with subtlety like Riviera have been hurt badly by bad ownership and bad architectural guidance.  I know that Geoff feels that the USGA is largely responsible for that and to some extent they are, but if Mr. Watanabe didn't want the prize so badly nothing would have been done there.  If the USGA recommended Fazio's group to do the work, shame on them and shame on Riviera for ignoring the best resource on how to do it right, Geoff Shackleford.

Too many regular golfers see Augusta National as the epitomy of golf course maintenance also.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()