[Patrick_Mucci]

In an article entitled, "Keeping Our Eye on the Ball" in the October 2005 edition of "Inside the USGA", an interesting paragraph appears early in the article.

"The confluence of science and philosophy lies at the center of golf's debate."

Some feel that the USGA was absent a philosophy, and that critical void created the vacuum that the manufacturers rushed to fill.

Some feel that the USGA is still absent "A" philosophy and absent a philosophy the manufacturers will continue prevail,  unchecked.

If, 13 years after Ron Prichard's letter the USGA has yet to establish their position, how can there be any resolution in the immediate future.

It's the PHILOSOPHY, NOT the SCIENCE that's the KEY.

[Brent Hutto]

It can be referred to as "philosophy" but that's a pretty fancy word for knowing what exactly one is trying to accomplish.

An obvious assumption (which in retrospect is wrong) would be that the purpose of golf ball conformance testing is to ensure that players don't keep adopting longer and longer flying golf balls indefinitely into the future. Since that has been proven not to be the case, it would be a valid question to ask the USGA "What is the goal of golf ball conformance testing?" and expect a definite answer. If they want that to be considered their "philosophy" that's fine. Label it what you like, it just needs to be answered.

One possible answer to the question would be "The purpose of our testing is to ensure that any golf ball being used in the future travels no farther in the air than a ProV1 would travel at the same clubhead speed". That allows for the very reasonable possibility that someone who can swing 20mph faster than John Daly will hit the ball considerably further than John Daly. It disallows the possibility that someone might swing 20mph faster than John Daly and find a golf ball optimized for that swing speed that goes much, much, much farther than would be expected by John Daly's golf ball simply being hit harder.

The closest we've seen yet to the USGA's answer to that question is "Our conformance testing ensures that we [USGA] are satisfied that the ball isn't flying too far". If that's their philosophy, then I don't see why anyone outside the USGA would give a darn about their rules.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

If you don't think the USGA/R&A has not had or never had a philosophy, and a stated and written philosophy regarding the protection of the game in I&B in the face of advancing technology you're both totally blind and incredible obtuse.

They have had a philosophy in that regard even if you personally, and others may not agree at this point with elements of how they've protected the game against advancing technologies in I&B.

Their philosophy has always been (and written) that they would concentrate on protecting the necessity of the skill of the golfer in the game from becoming totally overwhelmed by technologic advancements.

If they had completely failed to do that all these years then why is it that they have deemed as "non-conforming" balls and implements for so long?

If you want to see what their restated "philosophy" is in more recent time then I suggest you read their new "Joint Statement of Principles" (USGA/R&A) that was written in 2002.

Just because you may not agree with some of the things they've done or not done does not mean they don't have a "philosophy" of how to protect the game against technology completely overwhelming it.

[A_Clay_Man]

Brent, somehow, while reading your post I was thrown back in time. I was in a dingy old draft of a mud building, where a few anxious people were milling about. At the work bench sat a man stuffing feathers into a pouch. Stuffing and stuffing and stuffing. Then finally as if only he knew when to stop, did he lace up the pouch with a needle and thread. The most relaxed looking of the anxious, sprang to his feet , took the laced up pouch, paid the man a coin, and practically pranced out the door grabbing his clubs, swinging them over his shoulder as he went.


I can only assume this was somewhere near St. Andrews and the man doing all that stuffing was becoming known about town, as having the featherie that flew the farthest and truest, of all the featherie stuffers in all the land.

A golfer's pursuit for added distance, that slight catalyst that boosts confidence, surely must be as old as the hills and the game.

Fight it all you want, Ignore the rules and all you have are a bunch of silly people playing a very easy game. Put the ball in the hole. Does a game get any easier?

[Brent Hutto]

Of course practically every golfer who has played the game has wanted his golf ball to go a couple yards farther than it does. Human nature is unchanging.

My point is that if we're discussing a perceived excess of length and straightness in the game, the USGA's testing regimen only needs to be brought into the discussion to the extent that they intend to keep the ball from going farther and farther over time. Otherwise, USGA policy is a non-issue in talking about ever-increasing length. If they expect to allow new golf balls to fly farther then it's foolish to think there's a flaw in their implementation when in fact new balls fly farther.

I've stated repeatedly that I do not think the game currently suffers from an excess of length or height or straightness of golf shots. I do think the USGA testing programme allows ever increasing golf ball performance but if that's part of their "philosophy" then they just need to state it clearly and we can all get off their case, no?

[Doug Siebert]

Brent,

I can understand that you personally don't think the ball goes too far or straight for your game.  But can you honestly say that the way the game has changed for the pros in the past 5 years is a good thing?  Do you like watching them bomb it with a driver, knowing that their 310 yard carry will be fine even if hit into the rough because they'll hit a short iron into the green?  That's better (or not worse) then before when they might only carry it 270 and rely on roll for their 300+ yard drives making landing in deep rough far more problematic?  If the ball could be changed in a way that turned back the clock for the pros (and other long hitters) in this manner but didn't change your average driving distance or make your slices any more slicey, would you think that's a good thing or a bad thing for golf?  What if it was a competition ball so you could keep playing whatever you play now?

Not that I think carry distance is the only problem with the ball today,  but I'm just curious where you are at on this.

[Brent Hutto]

I think the increases realized by the stronget players over the past 10 years are excessive given that there is supposedly an "overall distance standard" to keep golf ball performance comparable over time. So perhaps "distance standard" doesn't mean what we think it means and Humpty Dumpty needs to tells us what he intends the phrase to denote.

That said, my answer is no. I don't find the game played today at the highest levels less interesting or valid than the game that was being played 11-12 years ago when I first started paying attention to it. Somewhat different but not a lesser endeavor by any means.

I guess some people want to see how Tiger Woods would play golf if he had to use the same strategy as Sam Snead or Jack Nicklaus. I'm perfectly content to watch him play against Ernie Els, Phil Mickelson and Vijay Singh using the bomb it straight and high approach. To me it's the same game just with different tradeoffs. Nobody got to see Jack Nicklaus win an Open with hickory shafts and a small golf ball like Bobby Jones but it was still a great show.

[ForkaB]

Brent

Nicklaus did in fact use the small (1.62) ball when he won his first British Open at Muirfield in 1966.  He 1-ironed the course to death in that victory, realising that he had no need to hit driver.  This perfromance was, in fact, one of the reasons why the R&A "rolled back" their ball--first for their championships in the 70's and  then later (in the mid-80's) for all players.

A very good analogy for today's situation, as Pat Mucci has been saying on this and other threads.  I was there when this roll-back happened, and believe me, the sky did not fall in!

[TEPaul]

Brent:

In that last post you made very good points and you made those points extremely well, in my opinion.

There are some, no doubt, who feel this new much longer carry and distance game we see so much of today on tour is more boring than the type of game the tour pros who preceded the current ones played. I don't know that one can make the case that that is generally true just due to this distance increase or this new strategy known as "flogging" off the tee. Some may feel that way because they think massive drives and short irons are boring or they've heard interest in the Tour is down in some way or some may be worried about future interest in the Tour in that way. Of course it certainly is interesting that one of those people appears to be Tim Finchem.

It seems to me that general interest in those who hit the ball a long way has always held a particular fascination for golfers of any era and I don't see that diminishing now. It certainly has continued to change the way the rest of the game is played and that will obviously continue if driver distance increases. That (the rest of the game after the tee shot) may be the part that is not so interesting to far more fans. But I doubt the fascination with the massive distances some tour pros drive it today is any less than the fascination the longest tour pros or great golfers of any era hit their driver.

Obviously, we on here, need to be careful to not let the assumptions of some on here look like the reality for all. Not if we want to be accurate about the way most feel about golf at any time.  

[Mike_Sweeney]

Their philosophy has always been (and written) that they would concentrate on protecting the necessity of the skill of the golfer in the game from becoming totally overwhelmed by technologic advancements.

"The R&A and the USGA will consider all of these factors contributing to distance on a regular basis. Should such a situation of meaningful increases in distances arise, the R&A and the USGA would feel it immediately necessary to seek ways of protecting the game."

___________________
From USA Today: "Golf's technology boom continues to echo at Augusta National, where changes at six holes will add 155 yards, pushing the course length to 7,445 yards for next year's (2006) Masters."
____________________

Tom,

How many more signals do they need? How many times has Augusta been lengthened since this Joint Statement? At least twice. Saying it and doing it are two different things.

Didn't you recently report that someone from the USGA said things to you at Merion that would contradict this Joint Statement?

Based on my one business interacion with David Fay, he is a nice guy, knows how to make money but is not the guy to lead this discussion over technology.

[TEPaul]

JOINT STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES (2002)   

As the governing authorities for the Rules of Golf including equipment Rules, The R&A in St. Andrews, Scotland and the United States Golf Association (USGA) have continued to monitor closely the effects of advancing equipment technology on the playing of the game. The R&A and the USGA are also aware that this subject has attracted wide-ranging comment and a number of conflicting views. History has proved that it is impossible to foresee the developments in golf equipment that advancing technology will deliver. It is of the greatest importance to golf's continuing appeal that such advances are judged against a clear and broadly accepted series of principles.The purpose of this statement is to set out the joint views of the R&A and the USGA, together with the framework of key principles and policies which guide their actions.In a historical context, the game has seen progressive developments in the clubs and balls available to golfers who, through almost six centuries, have sought to improve their playing performance and enjoyment. While generally welcoming this progress, the R&A and the USGA will remain vigilant when considering equipment Rules. The purpose of the Rules is to protect golf's best traditions, to prevent an over-reliance on technological advances rather than skill, and to ensure that skill is the dominant element of success throughout the game.The R&A and the USGA continue to believe that the retention of a single set of rules for all players of the game, irrespective of ability, is one of golf's greatest strengths. The R&A and the USGA regard the prospect of having permanent separate rules for elite competition as undesirable and have no current plans to create separate equipment rules for highly skilled players. Golf balls used by the vast majority of highly skilled players today have largely reached the performance limits for initial velocity and overall distance which have been part of the Rules since 1976. The governing bodies believe that golf balls, when hit by highly skilled golfers, should not of themselves fly significantly further than they do today. In the current circumstances, the R&A and the USGA are not advocating that the Rules relating to golf ball specifications be changed other than to modernize test methods.The R&A and the USGA believe, however, that any further significant increases in hitting distances at the highest level are undesirable. Whether these increases in distance emanate from advancing equipment technology, greater athleticism of players, improved player coaching, golf course conditioning or a combination of these or other factors, they will have the impact of seriously reducing the challenge of the game. The consequential lengthening or toughening of courses would be costly or impossible and would have a negative effect on increasingly important environmental and ecological issues. Pace of play would be slowed and playing costs would increase.The R&A and the USGA will consider all of these factors contributing to distance on a regular basis. Should such a situation of meaningful increases in distances arise, the R&A and the USGA would feel it immediately necessary to seek ways of protecting the game.In determining any future amendments to the Rules, or to associated procedures that may from time to time prove necessary, the R&A and the USGA will continue their respective policies of consultation with interested parties, including the use of notice and comment procedures, and will take account of the views expressed. The achievement and maintenance of worldwide uniformity in equipment rules through close coordination between the R&A and the USGA is a clear priority.The R&A and the USGA are concerned that, on an increasing number of occasions, new products are being developed and marketed which potentially run counter to the principles expressed in this statement. These product launches, without prior consultation with the governing bodies, can lead to considerable difficulties in formulating appropriate equipment rules and to undesirable conflicts between manufacturers and rule makers. The R&A and the USGA intend to bring forward proposals designed to improve procedures for the approval of new products.The R&A and the USGA believe that the principles stated in this document will, when carefully applied, serve the best interests of the game of golf.               
        

                            
 
                            
   
 

[TEPaul]

MikeS:

That is their (USGA/R&A) philosophy on the subject of Implements and Balls. This "statement" was written in 2002 and it's a good deal more comprehensive than any other statement on I&B that has been part of their written philosophy on I&B and technology that has preceded it. The point is a statement that technology should not be the determing factor (skill should) in the game of golf has been part of their written "philosophy for many, many years.

Obviously the degree to which they've adhered to this "philosophy" is the question here as it has been throughout the decades. This however, does not mean they have no "philosophy" at all.

One should read the 2002 "Joint Statement of Principles" very carefully because it includes a number of things they never have included before in a statement on their "philosophy" on I&B (and technology). The most notable to me is their first time inclusion of the factor of "Athleticism" as a contributing factor in potential or future increased distance.

Heretofore, they distinctly DID NOT include "athleticsim" as a contributing factor to distance increase, at least not insofar as it would be something they would ever consider monitoring or considering as a contributing factor to distance increase. But as of 2002 they have included that too.

What does this change in their statement or "philosophy mean (to include athletecism along with everything else)?

To me it means that this 2002 "Statement" is both an indication of what-ALL they may or can do and it is also a very clever and obvious indication of what the manufacturers should have to know both now and in the future. In other words, if the USGA is sued by any manufacturer in the future for proposing some restriction or limitation on distance through new I&B rules and regulations and the manufacturers claimed in court that the USGA/R&A sprang something on them they never expected, the USGA/R&A's defense lawyers could surely and conveniently point to the wording in this 2002 Joint Statement of Principles as clear evidence that was and is not true.

But as to if and when and how they may ever act to limit (or even rollback) distance increase one needs to take real notice of two words contained in that joint statement of Principles as those words pertain to both the golf ball and to technology's effect on the game generally.

Those two words (not as yet defined or clarified by the USGA/R&A) are "meaningful" and "significantly".    

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
How many more signals do they need? How many times has Augusta been lengthened since this Joint Statement? At least twice. Saying it and doing it are two different things."

MikeS:

I agree with you. How many signals do they need, indeed? I would not necessarily tie Augusta too closely to the decision making at Far Hills, however. I doubt the decision to add distance to ANGC is something that's discussed or approved  at Far Hills NJ.  

"Didn't you recently report that someone from the USGA said things to you at Merion that would contradict this Joint Statement?"

No, I don't remember saying anything like that and I don't recall anyone from the USGA saying anything to me at Merion or anywhere else that contradicted anything contained in the 2002 Joint Statement of Principles.

"Based on my one business interacion with David Fay, he is a nice guy, knows how to make money but is not the guy to lead this discussion over technology."

I would agree with that too. David Fay does not appear to be the one who seems either all that interested or inclined to lead a discussion on technology (and distance increase) in any meaningful way, at this point. In my opinion, that type of initiative given the present structure and make-up of the USGA needs to come from someone within the Board of Directors, probably someone on or coming on the "latter" that has to do with the I&B Committee (now renanamed to something like "Equipment Standards" Committee). Obviously that someone needs to be a person who might be described as "a strong hand". That someone must be strong enough and persuasive enough to create a consensus among the Board necessary to effect a vote, in the end. Once that's accomplished then the USGA will need to deal with the Board of the R&A   GULP!

This is why I was sad to see Jack Vardamann leave the USGA. I think he had an excellent working knowledge of the technicalities of I&B as well as an effective working relationship with the manufacturing sector (in the way the USGA needs to have a working relationship with the manufacturing sector). And I think his "philosophy" on this subject and in this area was perhaps a lot more of what the likes of those on here would like to see in this area.

I did also once spoke to a past I&B chairman who had that position at a time that could be categorized as "this era" and he certainly said he wanted to seriously curtail distance far more than it has been and proposed such during his tenure. Then I asked him who within the USGA truly supported his postion. His response to me was, "Almost nobody".

Having said all that, I do have a suspicion that something is going on up there that is evidence of something to come in this area. I've said a lot on some of these kinds of threads about what I think that may be. It is my suspicion and certainly my hope that eventually it will come in the context of what the USGA has recently made public regarding an area of their concern in I&B, something they are referring to as "spin generation".  

My point, and perhaps theirs, is that the amount of "spin rate" of a golf ball has never before been regulated or limited by them within their I&B Rules and Regulations? What if it was, depending on to what degree it was, of course?

[A_Clay_Man]

Tom Paul, As someone who believed, (and for all I know originated the statement,) " Golf is a great big world, and there is room in it for everyone." Are you saying that is no longer true, and, longer and longer courses do not fit in the context of "everyone"?

Please don't read any emotion or snidliness to my asking. I'm just curious if preserving the old, while apparently steifeling the "new", is within the spirit of the sport, and the big world theory?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()