[Patrick_Mucci]

I was always fascinated by Donald Ross's drawings or schematics on graph paper.

I enjoyed those same drawings and schematics from other classic designers.

Those drawings immediately conveyed to the observer,
how the hole was designed and how the hole was to be played.

Ross and others could count on drives ending up in predetermined LZ's, thus creating the desired approach shot to the green.

Scott Burroughs posted a nice aerial of Seminole the other day.

Imagine Ross's horror at the thought of the total irrelevance of his brilliant design of the 16th hole at Seminole.

Imagine his astonishment and his frustration at the thought of a golfer ignoring every one of his design features on that hole by driving the green.

That caused me to think of the 3rd hole at Seminole, a sporty par 5.   How long will it be until a golfer drives that hole with a helping north wind, rendering every design feature .... meaningless ?

Events, such as the one held after the Honda, at classic courses, illustrate what the pro's and better amateurs are doing to those golf courses.   This comes as a surprise to most members and observers.  

One would think that the thought of Hank Kuehne driving # 16 at Seminole would send a shock wave throughout golf and especially to the USGA that high tech is out of control.

I recently played golf with a friend who's been spending the last few seasons in Florida.  He was a decent golfer 5 or 6 years ago.  Now, at age 50, he's hitting the ball 300 yards off the tee.  I ask myself, how could this old guy, with a flawed swing blow it 50 yards past Nicklaus when he was good ?
Another member of the same club, 50+ typically carries it
300 off the tee.

The distances that better players, even old guys are hitting the ball caused a consulting architect to suggest moving some bunkers 50 yards further down the fairway to recapture the original architect's intent on the drive.  Where will it end ?

Golf is becoming a game of:
TEE here, GREEN there, and NOTHING in between matters.

So, I think back to Ross's holes, neatly drawn on graph paper and how IRRELEVANT his intended designs, strategies and architecture, as illustrated on paper, have become.

Those looking to lengthen the holes, grow the rough, harden and speed up the greens are being reactionary and avoiding dealing with the problem at it's root.  And, the root is equipment that hits a ball, that doesn't deviate in flight, incredible distances, combined with specialty clubs that can extricate balls from rain barrels.

[Clay Huestis]

Great post, Pat...very well summarized.  

I was an agnostic on the equipment debate before discovering this site, but every day I see more and more signs of the apocalypse...and as you rightly pointed out, the big hitters aren't just on the tour, they are everywhere.

I agree completely that the architectural stopgaps, whether growing the rough (unpopular with members of this site) or hardening and speeding up the greens (generally popular here), or moving bunkers 50 yards down the fairway, are all reactionary, and the only TRUE solution is rolling back the equipment, preferably to mid-80s persimmon and balata levels.  A really big hitter of his generation (Snead, Nicklaus, Tiger, etc) should be able to tag one 300 when conditions favorable (wind, downhill, hard fairways, etc), but that level should be inaccessable to mere mortals.

This is just not an academic discussion or something that only affects classic courses like Seminole. Now, the 370 yd dogleg par 4 on a typical muni, with the following par 3 on the inside corner of the previous dogleg, becomes a massive safety issue when a long but wild player decides the par 4 is now drivable.  Take the 16th and 17th at Seminole and put them on a public course with 50,000 rounds a year, and you have a recipe for disaster.

Unless something dramatic is done (and I'm not holding my breath), we will never again see any courses developed on relatively compact sites such as Seminole or Merion...and I don't think Donald Ross would have anything remotely positive to say about today's technology.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

It certainly is suprising to hear about Hank Kuehne flying his tee shot directly onto the 16th green at Seminole but don't forget the ultimate goal in golf is generally to score (he did make a birdie there). Since one of the people who played with Kuehne that day lives across the field from me I'd be happy to ask him what Kuehne shot that day as well as where he hit the ball on other holes. I have seen some long hitters on that hole including Dave Regan back in the 1960s who was really long. He probably would've tried to drive the ball directly at the green too but there were a number of tall thin palm trees along that line back then and he probably didn't want to risk hitting one so he'd generally drive it left and come up in front of the green with a short pitch in.

Those one time drive stories can be shocking but here's one that I think may be even more impressive. About fifteen years ago I went down to Seminole to play in the member guest and a long hitting friend of mine from Canada and Philly came down with me to play with another member. He was really long, had never seen the course before so we all went out and played a practice round. On the 18th from the tips but with a big wind behind him that long hitting friend of mine asked what would happen if he drove the ball over the dunes and right at the 18th green. The members said he'd never see his ball again but he hit it over the dunes right at the green anyway and his drive ended up in the big right bunker along-side the green. If he'd been little left his ball would've been right on the 18th green!

[Mark_Fine]

My guess is that now that Hank drove the green, most all of the members down there are trying to do the same.  As a result, they are finding all kinds of new trouble that Ross never dreamed of.  Donald must be pleased  

[John Kirk]

What would Donald Ross do,
If he were here right now,
I'm sure he'd kick an ass or two,
that's would Donald Ross would do!

Couldn't resist...that's from the song "What Would Brian Boitano Do?", from the movie South Park.

Unfortunately, I don't have much to add to Pat's original post.  I generally agree with the sentiments, but like everybody else, I enjoy hitting the ball farther.

[TEPaul]

Sorry, Pat, you wanted to know what Ross would've said if he could've seen Hank Kuehne drive his 16th green at Seminole. He probably would've said;

"If someone asked me to design a course for that young man I wouldn't build any doglegs!"  

Here's another fairly long drive story (I'm sure you'e heard) from that very same Seminole pro-am in the old days. Sam Snead hit his tee shot on #15 so long he drove his ball right through the fairway into the second stretch of the lake that some struggle to get over in two---and they told Sam he had to drop his ball behind the first stretck of the lake before the fairway.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Fine,

Those that can ..... will.

Those that can't ..... won't .... until high tech makes it possible.

TEPaul,

Someone gave Snead bad advice.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
Someone gave Snead bad advice."

Pat:

That's true---and that someone got a good ol' Virginia tongue lashing from Sam and then Sam got an good ol' Seminole tongue lashing from that person who gave him bad advice and Sam was told to put his ball behind the first pond or get the hell off the property!

But Sam was used to being told to get the hell off a golf course. It was at Piping Rock some years before that when Mrs Grace was playing in a pro-am with Sam and on the 9th hole (the Biarritz) she asked Sam to give her a golf lesson. At that point Sam unloaded his famous line on her;

"Ma'am, my advice to you is to take two weeks off and then quit the game."

At that point Mrs Grace flew into a rage of indignation and Sam was told not to tee off on #10 and to just walk right across the polo field and leave the club because he was "Outta Here!"

[JESII]

Pat

this obviously ties into the other thread about Geoff Shackleford's article, I really just want to know what you would like done, and how it would be done, and do you see any possibility that it will be done.

p.s. I am 100% supportive of rolling back equipment levels to some point in time, but I don't see it happening. Too much risk for the powers that be, with the only reard being a satisfied group of "purists".

[Pat_Mucci]

JES II,

Balls and implements have been regulated by the USGA for years.

The dilema arose when research and hi-tech out paced the USGA's ability to regulate in a contemporary context, causing a gap between the USGA's theories and the reality of performance

That gap increased, without abatement or intervention for many years.

The USGA should embark on a measured path that will return the standards of their regulatory influence on both balls and implements to a point that optimizes the benefit to the game.

Now, I know that sounds nebulous, but, first, it's important to establish a plan to achieve the desired goals.  
Once established, the details will fall into place.

I would begin the process vis a vis a 10 or 15 year plan.

With implements, I would begin by reducing the size of the head of a conforming driver over a 10 or 15 year period, such that the head of a driver would return to its persimmon day form.

Fairway metals would follow suit.

With respect to the ball, it needs to possess qualities that will allow it to curve, as in the past.  Whether that incorporates spin rates or other properties can be determined.

The golf ball has been 1.68 inches in diameter and has weighed the same forever.  Perhaps it's time to revisit those properties as well.

The objective is simple, reduced distances with more misdirectional influences.

Addressing implementation, the adoption of a USGA competition ball would be a good start.

If the USGA adopted a competition ball, understanding that the specs for that ball would change each year over the next 10 to 15 years, I think all regional, state and local associations would adopt that ball.  And, if Augusta announced that the USGA competiton ball would be the mandated ball of play for their tournament, it would give the concept the springboard it needs.

Because the changes would be gradual, over a 10 or 15 year period, just like the advances, there would be no dramatic change on a year by year basis, but, over 10 to 15 years the objectives would be achieved.

The impediment I see in implementing such a plan is the lack of continuity with respect to the leadership at the USGA.
Every two years Presidents, Executive Committees, Chairmen and Boards change. This revolving door policy undermines the continuity in leadership necessary to create, implement and administer a long range program.

Does anyone, ascending to the above positions want to embark on a difficult path on their limited watch ?

It's difficult to embark on a long term plan with short term management.

There was a time when some, if not many, were in denial of the existence of the problem.  Today, I think recognition is widespread if not overwhelming.

I see the transient, governing structure of the USGA as the single largest impediment to solving this problem.

The problem can be solved, but, does the organization have the inherent resolve ?

Can you imagine trying to build a house or skyscraper and having the architect, general contractor and every sub-contractor replaced every two months ?

Visionary, consistent, resolute, durable leadership is necessary.  Without those ingredients, I doubt much will happen, but, I wouldn't mind being surprised.



 

[TEPaul]

Pat:

That's a good post but we on here have been over all those things and all those reasons before, many times over---and they're all true---no question of it.

You and I have the exact same goal in mind--there's no doubt about it but we may have differing ideas about how to acheive it.

Yours seems to be to strengthen or reconstitute the USGA and the regulatory bodies somehow to have the strength to call a halt to this distance thing. But that's never happened in the history of the regulatory bodies.

If the manufacturers called up Fay and Dawson and Finchem tomorrow and told them they wanted to roll the ball back by fifty yards do you really think the USGA, R&A or the PGA Tour would have a problem with that?

I sure don't, and so that tells me where the problem lies here and always has. Sure, some say the manufacturers are what they are---they're in the business of business and they don't really care what they do to the game as long as they make a profit out of it. I know they may've been callous about the game in the past and may be even more so now but businessmen aren't really in the habit of actually planning to kill the thing that sustains them in the first place, and that's the very thing that needs to be better pointed out to them here and now.

Some of us think the best way to solve this thing is to stop it somewhere down the line. I may be jaded but not so jaded as to think it's virtually impossible to solve this thing at the source of the problem itself and if some don't know where the source of the problem really is they should look again.

Those who oppose what's going on right now are becoming large and impressive and they simply need to get together at this point and go to the source of the problem and give it their best shot to solve this thing once and for all where it really does start.

Things would be a whole lot easier to manage now and in the future if that were done. Some think it's impossible but I don't---at least not so impossible not to give it a shot. Organize all those who want to see this end and let them go to the source and try to persuade them. It may work and if it doesn't somehow who looks like the black-hats then?

[Neil Regan]

ome say the manufacturers ...don't really care what they do to the game as long as they make a profit out of it. ...ut businessmen aren't really in the habit of actually planning to kill the thing that sustains them in the first place, and that's the very thing that needs to be better pointed out to them here and now.
...
Some think it's impossible but I don't---at least not so impossible not to give it a shot. Organize all those who want to see this end and let them go to the source and try to persuade them. It may work and if it doesn't somehow who looks like the black-hats then?

I agree.

The manufacturers can be persuaded that not only is it prudent not to "kill the thing that sustains them", but that there is money to be made in the process.

How do we organize this argument ?
Can you identify the constituents ?
There's the GCA world, mostly on board already.
There's the general golfing public, far from convinced.
There's the Great Players of past and present, coming around.
There's the Great Old Clubs, virtually unanimous.
There's the Great Big New Clubs, often opposed.
There's the Ruling Bodies,
and
There's the Manufacturers, opposed but open-minded.

  One obstacle will be the legal threat to the USGA from those manufacturers who remain unpersuaded. They will sue the USGA. A necessary defense then will be this: The USGA has always done this sort of thing.

  You say the "USGA and the regulatory bodies somehow to ... call a halt to this distance thing. But that's never happened in the history of the regulatory bodies." I think that's mistaken. I am under the impression that it's happened in a major way at least 3 times in the past 100 years: when the Haskell ball came in; then again circa 1930; then again when the USGA and R&A standardized balls.
  Are there any golf historians here who can summarize the history of the USGA regarding regulation of the Ball ?

[Pat_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I believe that your concept of preserving the status quo and just going no further is flawed.

It's the status quo that allowed Kuehne to drive the 16th green at Seminole.

So we disagree, fundamentally, on where the line of demarcation needs to be drawn.

Secondly, I'm not advocating the reconstitution of the USGA.

I am advocating the altering of the revolving door system in the selection and retention of the Executive Committee, Board and President to the degree that it permits consistency of purpose/policy, and continuity in the administration of that policy.

The problem with the organization is that those chosen to be part of it are inherently forced to adopt its present day philosophies/policies.  
If one wishes to continue to serve or ascend within the organization, detaching oneself from the mainstream of the organization is tantamount to ending your career.
Even at the Executive committee level, because, let's face it, once you've reached the Executive committee, doesn't everyone aspire to be President ?
And, for those few who become President, for a one or two year term, do they want their Presidency marked with turmoil, internally and externally ?  Once they reach the Presidency they become short term lame ducks.

So yes, I'd like to see some reorganization at the highest level.

But, more important, is the recognition by the USGA that there is a problem and that their published mission statement is to research and resolve it, ASAP.

Neil Regan,

The USGA has ruled against "hot" balls for decades.

The USGA determines the specs for the ball and deems implements conforming or non-conforming.  This too, has been part of their regulatory role for decades.

Tweaking ball specs over the next 10 to 15 years would permit manufacturers to create new products for the changing market every year.

I don't know of one business where its future in guaranteed by the retention of the forces that coalesce to create todays market conditions, so why should the manufacturers be guaranteed status quo or better in perpetuity ?

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
I believe that your concept of preserving the status quo and just going no further is flawed."

Pat:

Honest to God, you're going to just have to do a better job of reading posts on here. I never remotely said that was my concept. I simply responded to JESII's question regarding what we think the USGA is thinking about right now vis-a-vis distance. I responded with what I think the USGA may be thinking about at this point. Why in the world do you think I agree with everything they do at any point in time?

[Pat_Mucci]

Yours seems to be to strengthen or reconstitute the USGA and the regulatory bodies somehow to have the strength to call a halt to this distance thing.

But that's never happened in the history of the regulatory bodies.

Some of us think the best way to solve this thing is to stop it somewhere down the line.

Things would be a whole lot easier to manage now and in the future if that were done.

I'm sorry, I must have misread or misinterpreted your post.
[/color]

[TEPaul]

"I'm sorry, I must have misread or misinterpreted your post."

Pat:

So, what's new?  

[Pat_Mucci]

"I'm sorry, I must have misread or misinterpreted your post."

Pat:

So, what's new?  

When you don't contradict yourself, are articulate and make cogent points  

Unfortunately, I can't remember any of that ever happening.[/color]

[TEPaul]

Pat:

If you read all of what I wrote you'll see I didn't remotely contradict myself but as far as you realizing that my advice would be don't even bother to try.  

[Pat_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I"m sorry, but, I'll need an interpreter to decipher and translate your last post.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
I"m sorry, but, I'll need an interpreter to decipher and translate your last post."

Pat:

Why don't you just keep that interpreter on permanently---perhaps he could read to you and hopefully write for you too. If he knew a little something about golf course architecture that would definitely do us all some good!  

[Pat_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I believe that your concept of preserving the status quo and just going no further is flawed.

It's the status quo that allowed Kuehne to drive the 16th green at Seminole.

So we disagree, fundamentally, on where the line of demarcation needs to be drawn.

Secondly, I'm not advocating the reconstitution of the USGA.

I am advocating the altering of the revolving door system in the selection and retention of the Executive Committee, Board and President to the degree that it permits consistency of purpose/policy, and continuity in the administration of that policy.

The problem with the organization is that those chosen to be part of it are inherently forced to adopt its present day philosophies/policies.  
If one wishes to continue to serve or ascend within the organization, detaching oneself from the mainstream of the organization is tantamount to ending your career.
Even at the Executive committee level, because, let's face it, once you've reached the Executive committee, doesn't everyone aspire to be President ?
And, for those few who become President, for a one or two year term, do they want their Presidency marked with turmoil, internally and externally ?  Once they reach the Presidency they become short term lame ducks.

So yes, I'd like to see some reorganization at the highest level.

But, more important, is the recognition by the USGA that there is a problem and that their published mission statement is to research and resolve it, ASAP.

Neil Regan,

The USGA has ruled against "hot" balls for decades.

The USGA determines the specs for the ball and deems implements conforming or non-conforming.  This too, has been part of their regulatory role for decades.

Tweaking ball specs over the next 10 to 15 years would permit manufacturers to create new products for the changing market every year.

I don't know of one business where its future in guaranteed by the retention of the forces that coalesce to create todays market conditions, so why should the manufacturers be guaranteed status quo or better in perpetuity ?

[JESII]

Why would the current ball R&D leaders want to go back 15 years in evolution? this simply lets anybody with money into the game. As it is there is a pretty defined group of competitiors. One reason I would hesitate if I were the USGA is the legal threat from those manufacturers who remain unpersuaded as to the necessity of these measures for the survival of golf.

From Neil Regan:

"They will sue the USGA. A necessary defense then will be this: The USGA has always done this sort of thing.

Neil,

Is the USGA prepared to assume the financial burden inherent in todays legal environment considering who these top ball manufacturer's are? I suspect it was less so when the standardization of balls came into effect.

[Neil Regan]

Is the USGA prepared to assume the financial burden inherent in todays legal environment considering who these top ball manufacturer's are? I suspect it was less so when the standardization of balls came into effect.

JES II,

  I agree that a legal threat was probably not an issue in the past when changes to the rules were made.

  I don't know if the USGA is prepared to assume the financial burden of a legal threat today. I have to believe it's a major consideration in any discussion of proposed changes to the Rules of Golf. They would be negligent indeed if they weren't ready with a defense if they did decide to change the rules.

  I think their best defense would be a very aggressive offense: Sue anybody who sues them. Stick with a very simple argument: Freedom of Speech. Anybody is free to make up any "Rules" for any game. Accuse those who sue them of attempting to violate their civil rights. Seek major punitive damages.
  Of course, the USGA might lose in court. But what's the use in having a rules-making organization that can't make rules ?

  The legal threat would be greatly diminished if the major manufacturers did not sue. They won't sue if they think that the changes to the rules are good for business. I think they can be convinced of that, but that argument has not yet been convincingly made. It needs to be demonstrated that
 A): A never-ending yearly increase in distance is not possible, and
B): A well-managed roll-back is profitable.

  Both these arguments can be persuasively refuted, especially with a short-term business model. A long-term argument must be made, that also shows short-term profits.

  Who can present that case ?

[TEPaul]

"One obstacle will be the legal threat to the USGA from those manufacturers who remain unpersuaded. They will sue the USGA. A necessary defense then will be this: The USGA has always done this sort of thing."

Neil:

Sure, there probably is a fairly reasonable prospect some manufacturer may sue the USGA if the USGA produces new ODS rules and regs in an attempt to rollback distance. However, I think the manufacturers can see now that their chances of succeeding with such a suit isn't what it once was.

And the USGA---who will logically always be the defendant in these types of suits ain't gonna send their lawyer in there with a defense of "We've always done this sort of thing!"

That would give the manufacturer's lawyer, the plaintiff's lawyer, a perfect opportunity to get up and say;

"Your Honor, a slave trader could say to a court 'We've always done this sort of thing' but that doesn't make it legal and it doesn't make it right".

And he'd have a helluva point too!

I think the manufacturers are beginning to figure out what the USGA's best defense will be every time and I think they've begun to figure out it's a defense they can't beat too.  The USGA's lawyer simply has to get up and say;

"Your Honor, the USGA and the USGA's I&B rules and regulations are solely based on "VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE" from everyone---both America's golfers and golf ball and equipment manufacturers. As such, we have no ability whatsoever to restrain a manufacturer's trade because he will always have the ablilty not to conform to our voluntary I&B rules and regulations if he wants to."

That defense is completely unbeatable in a court of law, in my opinion, but of course the USGA does have to completely comply with all their stated and written I&B procedures with the manufacturers too, and that most definitely includes their "notice and comment" procedures and the stated duration of them. As long as the USGA complies to that and also doesn't say something publicly that's defamatory towards some manufacturer the "voluntary compliance" defense should always carry them through any I&B lawsuit from a manufacturer.

Of course, if the USGA does produce I&B rules and regs such as a new ODS standard for the golf ball that really does include an effective distance rollback, their "notice and comment" procedures and the duration of it will become massively important and it will be necessary that the USGA really does comply with it!

Obviously the reason for that is if the USGA does write new ODS rules and regs and standards for the golf ball that will effectively rollback distance---it would effectively render every single golf ball out there and on the market today "non-conforming".

And to replace all the "non-conforming" balls in the world today is not exactly something they can ask the manufacturers to do tomorrow!    

[TEPaul]

Furthermore, if the USGA does this (write new ODS standards that will effectively rollback the distance the ball goes thereby rendering every ball out there now "non-conforming") the "notice and comment" procedures as well as the duration the manufacturers will need to comply will probably be a negotiable point in a court of law. This is something any jury will probably have to rule on. And what will it be? Maybe a few years at best. Of course the manufacturers will probably say if they aren't given something like 5 or 10 years it will restrain their trade given all the R&D they'll need to perform. We all know that's crap but they have every right to say that and obviously and impartial judge will consider it.

And all this stuff is precisely why those out there who just say to the USGA "Just do it" and don't worry about anything else don't really understand the realities of all this.

If the USGA just did this the way some on here seem to want them to and expect them to they would be sued by every golf ball manufacturers and they'd probably lose!!

I think the real problem for some of us today is that the USGA probably won't even try to write new I&B and ODS standards in any attempt to rollback the distance the golf ball goes. What they probably will do, though, and frankly if you look carefully at what they're quietly doing right now, is putting into place the legal, testing, and understandable rules and regs that will hopefully hold distance right about where it is now!

That'll probably frustrate and piss off a lot of people on here but it looks to me like that's precisely what they're positioning themselves to do and that's all they're planning on doing with distance.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()