[T_MacWood]

Adam

“Tom MacWood, The bad idea begins with the committee that follows the crowd, rushes to judgement, and decides to let the butchers in plaid, earn their fee and work their magic. “

So you are saying everything is fine with the current state of technology? Hum.

We are not discussing bad committees…we are discussing technology. There have always been bad committees and there always be bad committees…there isn’t much one can do about that. But when the good committees and the good benevolent dictators are faced with their once great tests being rendered obsolete, we know they will act (even at places that have remained relatively unchanged for decades).

“It's much too subjective an arguiment to protect classic courses from ruining themselves, all because of peer pressure.”

What does that mean…please translate? Because there will always be a few bad committeemen that equipment advancements are no concern? Ineresting concept.

“We all had hand me downs, save for the blue bloods and TePaul (unless his mini-cooper was purchased used?)  ”

Come again….you lost me.

“Why shouldn't American golf courses have a shelf life? (Especially the bad ones) Certainly the majority were built after Max Behr cried they were more like gameboards than fields for sport.”

No, I don’t think Merion, Riviera, Oakmont, Royal Melbourne, Durban, Sunningdale, etc. should have a shelf life….especially so that you can to hit the ball twenty or thirty yards further.  But then again I wouldn’t toss out a Manet or a Lutyens because it was old either.

I also don’t believe it would be in baseball’s best interest to allow aluminum bats…that is unless they were interested in dramatically changing the dimensions of every ball park and were interested in seeing a few infielders and pitchers killed. Basically that is what golf has done….and now we’ve got few parks that can not be altered...so I guess they’ve past their expiration date…they’re spoiled in your world.

You interject Max Behr in the name of indifference. Shame on you. Max Behr was keenly aware of the dangers of equipment advancements, and called for the authorities to step up…unlike you.

[Paul Richards]

Dan

> I will state the following opinion catagorically: I do NOT believe that we should be screwing up classic courses, jacking up the game's overall costs, sacrificing much of its history and tradition, minimizing shotmaking skills, etc. simply so that some relatively middling number of players can enjoy having their mis-hits "feel good and fly straighter."  It's an awfully lot to sacrifice just to boost a few egos...



Excellent!!!


Well said.


 

[Paul Richards]

Tom Doak:

>What the USGA needs to do is GIVE ALL THE MONEY AWAY to worthwhile golf charities.  THEN they can make a stand with the manufacturers, secure in the knowledge that there will be no lawsuit because there is no money for a judgment.


Perfect!


I LOVE this idea.


 


Dear USGA,

Please follow Mr. Doak's idea FOR THE GOOD OF THE GAME!!!!


 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul Richards,

That won't happen and it's folly to pursue that idea.

I'm puzzled by the USGA's position.

Do they really feel that increased distance isn't a problem  ?

Or, do they have a hard time admitting that they made a mistake on the distance issue, and are digging their heels in to defend that mistake rather than rectify it ?

I can't understand how they have failed to acknowledge, or have ignored the distance issue over the last 5-10 years.

And, I don't understand why the issue seemed to disappear after Buzz Taylor took an aggressive stance on the issue years ago.

[Daniel_Wexler]

Pat:

I agree on all counts.  However angry I am with them, I am considerably more mystified than anything else.  Once Nicklaus and other top players started speaking out, I figured that whatever timidness they had would finally recede given so much political cover....but no such luck.

A pretty staid professional friend of mine is equally confused; so much so, in fact, that he actually suggests that they must be on the take from the manufacturers.  I do not personally subscribe to that notion at all....but like you I remain at a loss to explain it...

[TEPaul]

"And, I don't understand why the issue seemed to disappear after Buzz Taylor took an aggressive stance on the issue years ago."

Patrick:

You really don't understand why the issue seemed to disappear after Buzz Taylor took an aggressive stance on the issue years ago?? You know Pat, you seem to get denser with every post! And you expect me to believe you live within a quarter mile of Tony Soprano???

[Patrick_Mucci]

Daniel Wexler,

Like you, I"m mystified.  
I've gone through the exercise of trying to understand their thinking, and, I just can't figure it out.  I'm totally puzzled.

TEPaul,

Don't you have a founders lifetime membership to the Bada Bing ?

Isn't it true that you adopted Coorshaw in a fraudulent attempt to gain admittance, free of charge, so you could claim that you frequented the place daily, just to hear the music ?

[A_Clay_Man]

Alfie, Anything to bring your exciting concept to the forefront. It's a far better solution to offer your alternative, to those who lament a passing era, than to repeat history and fail, a chance for an evolved version of this sport. So much has been lost, it's where we shine as a species in how we deal with it.

I'm sure the members at Painswick don't feel obsolete at 4800 yards, So why do the members at Merion feel it? Cultural differences? Ego-centric Americans?

Tom Mac-

So you are saying everything is fine with the current state of technology? Hum.

I'm not saying it. The usga is when they drew the line in the sand with their most recent statement, and. any further leaps in distance will be through means other than equiptment advances. Those are still possible aren't they? Physical fitness, educational, and emotional factors, first come to my mind as sources of becoming a better ball striker.

“It's much too subjective an arguiment to protect classic courses from ruining themselves, all because of peer pressure.”

What does that mean…please translate?

Keeping up with the Jones's is suppose to be a bad thing, in my book. Disfiguring a classic has to be a step by step, carefully thought out process, through which each club went through. I doubt Few, if any, of them regarded what they were doing was destroying works of art. That's their loss. Perhaps if they were less ego driven and valued what they had, as art, I might show some sympathy. But since I'm a cold hearted trader, at heart, I resignm to live with my decisions. Good or Bad. Why shouldn't they? And Tom, It's not like 'they" (stupid rich people) don't have the werewithall to undue what's been done.

We all had hand me downs, save for the blue bloods and TePaul (unless his mini-cooper was purchased used?)  ”

Come again….you lost me.

Sorry, a little (very) attempt at smileyless humor. But, I think it would be great(Payback, Karma etc.) if some inner-city kids, someday, had a shot at a tee-time at Augusta national, once it's as obsolete as an edsel. That's all I meant. An evolution of sorts, adjusted reality, ya know? outside the box.

que sara sara

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
Don't you have a founders lifetime membership to the Bada Bing?"

You're damned straight I do Patrick---and you think I don't know that's just another good reason you're secretly so envious of me???

Fugetaboutut!

""I'm mystified.  
I've gone through the exercise of trying to understand their thinking, and, I just can't figure it out.  I'm totally puzzled."

Of course you are Patrick. People who go through the excercise by running in place with their eyes closed generally are mystified and puzzled.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I find that my time exercising on the treadmill goes quicker if I close my eyes.

As to exercising by running in place, I use my treadmill as a treadmill, not as a catapult, as you do.

On a serious note, did you read the article entitled, "Keeping Our Eye on the Ball" in the October 2005 edition of the USGA's "Inside the USGA ?

It's written in a strange way, almost in the third person, as if the author is a disinterested party.

I'd be interested in hearing your comments, and the comments of others after they've read this article.

Once again, it doesn't look like they've taken a definite and/or firm stance.

[Paul Richards]

Lou

You mentioned a note by the USGA in a recent newletter.

Could you post a copy of it?  Perhaps their response will offer a granual of info that tells us why they have let this issue get so far away from them....

 

[Lou_Duran]

Paul,

The bulk of the October 2005 issue of "Inside the USGA" is devoted to the referenced article entitled "Keeping Our Eye on the Ball".

I have neither a scanner nor the ability to post this article.  The USGA website does not appear to have it either at this time.  Perhaps someone else could locate it online and provide a link.  I do suspect that Beverly has a copy of the publication.

[A_Clay_Man]

Paul, I'll struggle through my Ulnar Neuropathy and re-create this for you. It appears on the bottom of the first page of the issue "Inside the USGA"

The USGA has hired the best available talent and committed a suitable budget to transform itself into an organization that proactively regulates equiptment and the golf ball. This requires that the USGA and The R&A, St. Andrews, be on the leading edge of the science that has fueled advances acheived by manufacturers. This special issue consists of 15 pages that describe the work already done, offers perspective and addresses questions that face the governing bodies.

In any other issue, this front-page space would be given to an article that describes the most substantial changes ever made to the Rules of Amateur Status. That repeot is on pages 22 and 23.

p.s. I had an idea for all you intent in bringing down the equiptment manufacturers (or is it the usga?)

After witnessing a Ping commercial where they said words to the affect that buying their club "will lower your score". Sue them for false advertising.

Paul, In the middle of this front page of "Inside the USGA" is a red quote from the NYtimes dated May 2005 it reads "The only thing in golf that has not changed is the average score for 18 holes".

p.s. Send in your check

[Daniel_Wexler]

"The only thing in golf that has not changed is the average score for 18 holes".

Adam:

I'm curious: Why do you suppose that is?

[Craig Sweet]

I'll try...greens speed...

[A_Clay_Man]

Daniel, will your ten percent reduction in distance return shotmaking to the game?

[Daniel_Wexler]

Adam:

Answer my question first (preferably in terms that simple-minded guys like Tom MacWood and I can understand) and then I'll answer yours.

Craig:

"I'll try...greens speed... "

Absolutely.  But I would also add overall lengthening and, among the better courses I'm familiar with, a substantial narrowing of fairways.  Plus, in many cases, the lengthening of rough.

Assuming that a course has the land (often not the case), the lengthening might not be a big problem (assuming the old tees haven't been destroyed) because the option not to step back to 480 yards still remains.  But the narrowing of fairways materially DOES alter the architectural integrity of most well-designed layouts (Augusta being perhaps the all-time example).  And as Dr. MacKenzie (and others) have suggested, rough is about the least interesting, most tedious "hazard" there is.  

Green speeds, of course, are a mixed blessing.  I doubt if anyone anywhere wouldn't choose today's smoother, faster surfaces to those of yesteryear, but as you well know, ultra-fast putting surfaces require quite a bit less contouring to remain "fair," thus removing (or minimizing) another vitally interesting component of a well-designed hole.

Bottom line: If we're little concerned with so many of the things that make a golf course an utterly unique playing field, "Resistance to scoring" CAN be maintained -- and for quite a bit longer too, I suspect, because if we narrow fairways to 10 yards in width, they're going to be REALLY hard to hit.

But here again, we are materially altering important aspects of the game simply to accommodate a middling amount of ego gratification -- though as I said earlier Craig, at least you're man enough to admit it.

[A_Clay_Man]

Answer my question first (preferably in terms that simple-minded guys like Tom MacWood and I can understand) and then I'll answer yours.

You mean chilldish?

Let me guess Daniel, You're a Democrat? I really meant to put Democrat instead of Hitler, but I didn't want to offend any of my friends. And, please don't waste your time ripping republicans on my account, I'm not one of those either.

Your question about why I might think the average score hasn't lowered isn't really germaine, to the issue is it? I viewed it as attempt to bait me, which is even more credible now that you've invoked the "I asked first" defense.

BTW, the only real justification you have exposed in defending your crusade is the Pride and investment spent by club members, whose courses are in fear of being obsolete. Is that the best you got?

[Paul Richards]

For those of you who have advocated that this is a NEW issue for the USGA, let me share two letters written by Ron Prichard to the USGA, the first is dated March 22, 1993 and the follow-up is dated June 8, 1998

Technology getting out of hand, especially for all the reasons so eloquently put forward by others on this thread, is hardly a new topic.

So that they don't stay buried here on page 8 of this thread, I will post Ron's letters (his permission has been granted) on their own thread.


FOR THE GOOD OF THE GAME

 

[A_Clay_Man]

Along with, Alan Robertson 100+ years ago, Mackenzie 80 years ago, Jack Nicklaus 20 years ago blah blah blah


Golf sure has suffered not listening to all of them.


Who among all of the rollback proponents can gaurantee that a reduced flight ball will not ruin golf? And let's use dollars as a measuring stick.


Paul, BTW You're welcome !

[Patrick_Mucci]

Adam Clayman,

Dollars is probably the worst measuring stick.

It's not just rolling back the ball, it's also returning the properties that allowed the ball to have movement, like hooks and slices.

Inventing a ball that goes straight is no asset to the game of golf.

Inventing clubs that produce straight flight is no asset to the game of golf.

Skill, not technology must be the primary factor in producing the desired ball flight.

[Daniel_Wexler]

"Your question about why I might think the average score hasn't lowered isn't really germaine, to the issue is it? "

Adam:

This may be the first logical thing you've said on this entire thread.  No, of course it's not terribly germaine.  I only asked it in response to YOUR INTRODUCING THE SUBJECT THREE POSTS AGO!!!!!!

Sheesh!  Even on the occasions when the English isn't too garbled to read, you're posts still don't make any sense!

[Paul Richards]

Adam

I have to second what Daniel said in the last post.

BTW, what does this mean?

>Paul, BTW You're welcome !


For what???
 

[TEPaul]

"On a serious note, did you read the article entitled, "Keeping Our Eye on the Ball" in the October 2005 edition of the USGA's "Inside the USGA ?
It's written in a strange way, almost in the third person, as if the author is a disinterested party.
I'd be interested in hearing your comments, and the comments of others after they've read this article.
Once again, it doesn't look like they've taken a definite and/or firm stance."

Patrick:

A very interesting question;

I just got it and I'm reading it. You're right, it's a very interesting way to present the issue. There very well may be some consistent message between the lines.  

[Paul Richards]

Tom

>It's written in a strange way, almost in the third person, as if the author is a disinterested party.


Since you have access to it, can you post it so that we can all share 'the experience'?

thanks

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()