[A_Clay_Man]

You can't equate a golf course that took centuries to evolve with the design and construction of modern day golf courses.
It's a flawed analogy.

Wasn't it G.C. Thomas that wrote to respect the craddle, as it relates to golf course architecture?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Adam Clayman,

The old course was designed.

Have you played it ?

Those bunkers, such as the road hole bunker didn't suddenly appear one day.

Those greens and tees weren't always there, they were created.

You're confusing a process that took a long, long while with one that takes a year or so.

[Alfie]

Patrick,

Obviously, the article isn't online at the USGA website. I wonder if Geoff has posted it ?

I'll refer to Tom Paul's comment a couple of posts back ; "This time, at this point, in any case, the USGA/R&A seems to be saying they believe the ball will not go "siginificantly" farther in the future because this time (2002-2005) they know so much more about the potential technologies of the golf ball than they ever have before (seems as if they may've said that in the past too, unfortunately)."

........

If Tom is right, and I have no doubt he is in his interpretation, then it's just another load of claptrap (from the USGA/R&A).

Both organisations have become expert at pulling wool over eyes - eyes that don't really want to see past today.

It's all very clever and calculating IMO. But not very honourable ?

But sorry - can't think how I can manage to read it

Alfie.

[A_Clay_Man]

Alfie- You really don't need to read it. You've been a regular here long enough that most of the material is just a re-hash of what gets discussed here daily.

Interesting that some point-out a dispasionate writing style.

My take is there will be no rollback, unless the line in the sand is crossed. Sadly, that won't satisfy those who feel compelled to just bash bash bash.

[Alfie]

Adam,

But I like to hear it coming straight (more bent) from the horses mouth. Both the R&A/USGA should not disregard history because they are presently in a format of making it. It's how history will finally judge their performance that becomes interesting. Are "they" so naive not to know this ?

Believe it not - I'd much prefer NOT to be bashing our ruling/ governing bodies because however pompous some of them might be, they are the ones holding all the aces. They DO have the power, they just don't appear to have the inclination to "do the right thing" !

The pro's and cons of WHY they aint acting is down to personal interpretation of all the facts at our disposal. Maybe if I were a wee spider on the wall at the R&A golf club (or Far Hills) then I might be relaying some dodgy exposures on this site ? Who knows ? Aren't we all speculating and trying to read between lines on this messy issue of technology ?

My take is that a rollback is inevitable. The line has long been crossed over in the sand. And, as a passionate golfer, I'll continue to feel compelled to bash, bash away at this technology drum until someone can convince me of an argument that the "Outer Limits" is THE place to be.

Alfie
Alfie

[Paul Richards]

These letters are very important to the future of golf.

I am moving this back to the top thread so that others may enjoy the contents.

 

[Lou_Duran]

Paul Richards,

What has set you off on this anti-USGA thing?

Did you really read the USGA newsletter closely and with an open mind?  You don't come across to me as a single issue voter.  Will you not at least acknowledge that there are viable, meritorious competing views on the subject, and that the USGA has a responsibility to more than just one narrow constituency?

As one who straddles the fence on this one, I didn't find the long article and various perspectives to smell of propaganda nor particularly odd in its presentation.  I'll read it again this evening, but my first take was that it just layed out the competing issues and viewpoints, making things more clear and perhaps justifying why it has not been quick on the trigger.

[Paul Richards]

Lou

>Did you really read the USGA newsletter


No.  I explained in the other thread that I never received it and asked someone to please post it!

[Paul Richards]

Tom

>I believe Ron may've said the USGA didn't answer his letters but what he may've meant is they didn't address his concerns


Not true.

Ron has just assured me that he "never did get any response to the letters I wrote."

 

[Paul Richards]

Having had many conversations on this topic with Ron Prichard, I can assure you that he is very passionate about these letters and they still reflect his love and desire of the game to not be spoiled by the technological arms race that is occurring now.

[Lou_Duran]

Paul,

Of course I read it.  I just came to it with a different mindset.  Perhaps I would feel differently if I had grown up in a place like Riviera (e.g. Geoff Shackelford) and saw the site of many happy childhood memories altered by heavy equipment and the passage of time (though I know that he did what he was told, I am still pissed-off at Brauer for the anti-Plummer green complexes and some silly mounding at a my old club where I am no longer a member).

Ron makes some excellent points.  He is hardly the first nor the last.

The crux of the matter is the current health of the game and how it is trending.  Some believe Humpty Dumpty has long been broken and is irrepairable.  I think that he is teetering on the wall, perhaps precariously, but the USGA seems getting ready to catch him if he falls.

Why am I optimisitc?  I think that the movement for a tournament ball has achieved sufficient mass to allow a conservative organization to take action.  Of course, I could be all wet, in which case the similarities between the game at the highest levels and the one we play will continue to disappear.  Whether this is detrimental to the health of the game, I am just not sure.  I generally trust that history will repeat itself, and that the future of golf remains bright.

Could you be getting the winter blues prematurely?  

   

[TEPaul]

Well, I guess I'd have to say my opinion on what may happen with distance in the future has changed again---after making some calls yesterday for clarifications.

About ten days ago about 85 of us (The Lesley Cup) had Dick Rugge (USGA's Senior Tech Director) speak to us. On the subject of distance today and future distance Dick said the following things in answer to a few questions on if or how the USGA could perhaps in effect rollback the recent distance increase through "spin rate" control et al;

Dick said there are a number of ways the USGA could rollback distance through additonal rules and regulations on the golf ball or whatever. Then Dick said to us that the USGA is happy with distance right now. He said he and the USGA believe that distance can be held in check from here and that the USGA believes we are seeing the evidence of that in recent statistics. He said he feels distance can be held in check from here because the USGA's tests are so much better and more comprehensive than in the past. He said the USGA feels that they are so much better prepared and ready now to handle any technologic advancement that may come down the scientific pipeline at them (the very same thing that's explained in their October 2005 Newletter). Obviously one of the reasons he says these things is the USGA appears to be in the final stages of a massive project to analyze golf ball potential (some say the project was a $10 million study beginning around 2002).

And Dick also said that if for whatever reason (now apparently even including "athleticism") there is a "meaningful" increase in ball distance in the future that USGA is prepared to deem whatever is causing it "non-conforming".  

I believe he also mentioned what I feel I already knew that this 2002 USGA/R&A Joint Statement of Principles makes it more than clear to manufacturers (and others) how and why the USGA/R&A can and will act on these issues.

Has distance gone way too far at this point? Obviously many of us and many others think so. Obviously Ron Prichard thinks so. It appears Ron thought so almost twelve years ago. But apparently the USGA and the USGA's Tech Center doesn't think so and their Senior Tech Director told 85 of us that ten days ago. Obviously what he told us is no different than what he tells other groups he speaks to.

Can they hold distance at this point forward with no "meaningful" increase in the future? Some point out they've basically said that in the past and it didn't happen, unless the 26 yard increase Dick mentioned is considered by them not very meaningful. Dick said this time they can stop it.

Have things gone too far or way too far to this point? Even if you think so could you live with a distance cap at where it is today---in 2005?

[A_Clay_Man]

One reason why this position is basically all they could do at this time, is that you cannot get much more straighter with the golf ball.

Tom, or all you physicists out there-
Increasing the spin rate wouldn't necessarily curb distance. It would only allow for a less straight ball. Resulting in encouraging slower swing speeds, which would reduce the long distance stats. Is that an accurate assesment? If so, it wouldn't remove the option of the way lay, only curb it's appeal.

[TEPaul]

"Tom, or all you physicists out there-
Increasing the spin rate wouldn't necessarily curb distance. It would only allow for a less straight ball. Resulting in encouraging slower swing speeds, which would reduce the long distance stats. Is that an accurate assesment? If so, it wouldn't remove the option of the way lay, only curb it's appeal."

Adam:

No sir, that is not an accurate assessment. According to the USGA Tech Center (all things being held equal) increasing the spin rate certainly would reduce distance (by flattening out the initial trajectory). The remainder of the answer to those questions was it would probably have a bit more effect on the up and down trajectory than on the sideways effect on the ball.

[tlavin]

Gentlemen, gentlemen, please spare us the Chicken Little routine.  The sky isn't falling.  Are they killing the ball off the tee?  Sure.  Are many fairway bunkers obsolete (to the pro tour) because of ball and driver technology?  Sure.  Does the everyday player, club member, regular tee-time holder and good, competitive club amateur love the technology?  Absolutely.  Are classic courses still being used for tour events and national championships.  Yes, they are.

Let's not allow our passion for classic architecture overwhelm this debate.  The main complaint that I hear is that technology (specifically related to the golf ball) is ruining the pro game.  People have been saying this for decades.  The argument has heated up in recent years because of titanium shafts, the Pro V1 and its imitators, but the classic course is in danger of being obsolete, IMHO.

Can every Seth Raynor course hold up to the tour?  No and big deal if they can't.  The true measuring stick of a great golf course is not whether it can our would or should host a championship and the advances of technology, in 99.9% of the cases, have helped enjoyment of the game by the masses of commoners, like us, who play the game.

Not to mention the fact that technology in this arena has contributed greatly to our sporting economy.

I say let all this caterwauling about the big, bad, unresponsive USGA rest in peace, because you may rest assured that the day that the USGA requires the equivalent of a "tour ball" or otherwise pushes back the technology clock, the rest of the golfing world will start to yearn for the "old days" when they really could bash the ball.

[T_MacWood]

"The true measuring stick of a great golf course is not whether it can our would or should host a championship and the advances of technology, in 99.9% of the cases, have helped enjoyment of the game by the masses of commoners, like us, who play the game."

tlavin
Is that what you said before Olympia Field embarked on a modernization/redesign?

[Paul Richards]

>tlavin
>Is that what you said before Olympia Field embarked on a modernization/redesign?



Terry,

Even you have to admit the par five 18th at OFCC-South, playing as a 495-yard four par#9 for the Open, wasn't intended to play as a Driver-Lob Wedge, now was it?

How do we know that wasn't the USGA's intention?  They placed a walkway across the fairway.  And I saw guys bombing it OVER the walkway.  On the fly.

I would be surprised to learn that that was what the architect, the membership, and the USGA had in mind.



 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()