Should the USGA.....

[TEPaul]

GaryD:

No problem. I don't mind being taken out to the woodshed every now and again as long as I get to take my wet noodle with me.

[Anthony Butler]

James Bennett

"(our club pays about $25,000 to the State association in a single annual cheque)"

TE Paul

James:

What? That seems huge. What exactly is your club paying all that money to the state association for? What is the pass on cost from the club to the individual member for that large club expenditure?

Tom,

That check is composed of each member's Australian Golf Union "dues", which are included within the membership fee of anyone who is a member at an Australian golf club. Therefore compulsory. Each state golf association which forms the Australian Golf Union takes their cut and passes along a percentage for the AGU. The AGU doesn't really have the year-round 'share of mind' that the USGA does, mainly because they are not a rules-issuing body. Or engaged in bettling the evil manufacturers on our 'behalf'. The only time the AGU gets any publicity, it is mostly negative-incorrectly setting up the course for the Australian Open on a Melbourne course where the north-west winds blow and make the greens unplayable, or the money they invested in Moonah Links (which shows little sign of a positive return.)

The composition of the AGU committee is more representative of the everyday club member from each state of Australia and less elitist than the USGA, or R&A committees. Given the difficulty of attracting consistent sponsorship for their tournament, the AGU has now hired Paul McNamee to run the Australian Open. His claim to fame is turning the weak sister of the tennis grand slams (Australian Open) into a wildly successful two week sporting event in Melbourne. A financially successful golf championship like the US Open is the primary commercial goal of the AGU.

With the shorter PGA Tour season in 2007, it is hoped that Australia will be able to attract more non-Australian PGA Tour players for the Open. The dues every club golfer in Australia pays helps keep the Australian Open going even though it undoubtedly lost money each of the last five years.

[John Kavanaugh]

Hosting the 2006 US Senior Am is the best thing that has happened in the short history of Victoria National.  Every playability aspect of the club has improved through the hard work of the membership and club personel under the guidance of the USGA.  Every single member is both proud and thankful that the USGA chose our club to host one of their fine events.  The USGA makes golf better.

[Jim Sweeney]

My experience is that the USGA does listen to all the constituents in the game. Perhaps chief among these are are the allied associaitons (R&A, IAGA, PGA, LPGA, PGA Tour, GCSAA, CMA, AJGA, regional associations, ASGCA, NCAA etc. etc.)

Constituents also include the equipment companies, environmental groups, seed and chemical companies, and other commercial and social organizations, and governments.

And constituents certainly include member clubs and individual members.

No organization could long survive that followed the will of so many, often contradictory, agendas.

The USGA must listen, of course, and it does. It must then, however, act (or not act) in the best interest of the game, independent of all.

That includes the R&A. The cooperation between the two rules making bodies must be carefully managed in order to avoid the type of legal entraoments we have witnessed too often in the past twenty five years or so.

Craig,

What evidence do you present that the USGA is focussed on the golfer, not on golf?

[JESII]

"Maybe they already are doing that, but how can the recent amateur status changes be thought to evolve over a 50 year period?"

Sully;

Would you say that commercialism and/or professionalism has a far greater presence in golf and effect upon golf than it did fifty years ago?  Would you expect that to increase in the future---in the next fifty years?

If so, how do you suppose the USGA should react to it? Should they work to eradicate it, to stop it, to slow it down? Or should they simply attempt to deal with the reality of it in our culture and in our sports, including golf?

First let me say that so long as ELITIST is to be defined as you did I think yes the USGA should take an elitist position in all things related to the future and direction of amateur golf. The trouble is that it is so often viewed in that negative context you mentioned. One way to overcome that (if they feel the need) would be to make more open the inner workings of the organization in terms of how the individuals are appointed and organized.


As far as this 50 year view of things, I would say that the only was commercialism will decrease over any time frame, whether it be 5 or 50 years is if popularity does so first. The fewer people involved in the game, the fewer dollars will be focused on it. Pure and simple. I think the USGA should deal with commercialism / professionalism with a very firm hand. I understand the technology debate and do not think the USGA has acted poorly on that because the scope of the issue is pretty overwhelming. The professionalism debate is a different matter though. Changing rules to more closely conform with those that are breaking those rules does not seem an effective course of action to me. I can see how the two issues (commercialism and profesionalism) are similar but I see them as two separate and distinct conversations.

p.s. I agree with John Kavanaugh's last sentence.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Of course the USGA should serve to consider the the whole spectrum of golfers..after all they are the governing body of gole not just the elite of golf.
Are they successful in that mission ?... probably not...but in their defense{I cannot believe I am defending the USGA] that is  a hard task to fulfill.

They tried to serve the everyday player by relaxing equipment rules..made a total balls up of the issue and now get crucified by all and sundrie for their missing the point and dropping the ball..no pun intended

They try to relax the amateur rules to equalise the paying field..mess that up in some eyes and get crucified for that also, ans as such they have a tough balancing act to carry out.

[Dan King]

There is no reason why the USGA has to worry about elite or casual or anything like that. Just go back to running the 13 national championships every year. That is there job. Everything else should grow out of that or they shouldn't be involved. (Okay, some of their charity work should continue even if not related to running the national championships.)

The USGA rule book, course work, etc... should be related to the championships they conduct. For everyone else the USGA is completely voluntary. Because of their work on their championships it becomes convenient to use the USGA rules, etc... but no reason to if you don't want to. If I go out on a Saturday and decide to play by different rules, use a shotgun instead of a driver, or hit a superball, the USGA shouldn't care. (The course might.)

If there is an issue with the ball going too far in their national championships then the USGA should deal with it. It should't matter if it does or doesn't go too far on the PGA Tour, in college tournaments or even  with my Saturday afternoon foursome.

Dan King

At its best, the U.S. Open demands straight drives, crisp iron shots, brilliant chipping and putting, and strategic position play. Plus the patience of St. Francis and the will of Patton. At it's worst, the Open eradicates the difference in ability between a Tom Purtzer and a Tom Watson and throws both in the same jail of high rough and high risk shots. This is the disturbing tendency in the Opens of the seventies and eighties, one which worries everyone in golf.
 --Thomas Boswell

[James Bennett]

Tom Paul

I think Anthony Butler answered your question about where does the $25,000 go.  It represents the annual fees of every member, and enables our State and National golf union to function.  I have to say I don't know whwere they spend the money.

One thing that is happening here is the amalgamation of mens and womens golf into the one group (yes they have run separately for the last century), principally due to government intervention threatening to pull some funding if they don't merge.

We still have separate organisations trying to assist/develop pro golf (PGA and PGA tour, course superintenedents and club managers).  they do work together on some projects.

James B

[Chris Kane]

I'm going to be shot for this, but I agree with Dan King's post, but take it one step further.  The USGA should become like every other national governing body - the national governing body only - and let the R&A become the single governing body for golf.  If the R&A are good enough for almost every other country in the world, they aren't too good to for America also.

[Bob_Huntley]

Tom Paul,

If it wasn't for eliteists we would have no standards at all.

Growing up in England and the Colonies there was something called the Corinthian ethic, there were teams named as such, amateurism in sport was de rigeur and the idea of playing for pay was an abomination. Old fashioned ideals die hard but eventually common sense prevails.

I have just watched a movie, 'The Greatest Game Ever Played' and the director, Paxton, pays close attention to the snobbery and downright unattractiveness of the so called upper classes. What comes across to me is that the so called 'untermenschen' are as bound by rules and behavior as their masters. Without such rules their is anarchy.

I feel that where mulligans, winter rules, six foot gimmes are in use, one must say before  teeing off, "What rules are we not playing today."

I think the USGA does the job of letting the golfing public know that if they are serious about the game and competition, they need to know the rules of the game.

Bob

[TEPaul]

My intention with this thread was to ferret out what those on here think the USGA's mission should be.

I think most of the posts on this page are pretty representative of what most on this website think the mission of the USGA should be.

My own opinion probably varies a little from most of the posts on this page.

Dan King, for instance, wants to take the USGA back to approximately what it was in 1895, not what it is in the 21st Century. Rich Goodale seems inclined to do away with the concept of the "amateur" golfer altogether.

It seems like the USGA should keep its ear to the ground but not lead by some consensus opinion of those it represents but by the example of what it believes to be the most important principles about the game of golf.

Sully, your first paragraph in your last post is very good, I think. How does the R&A differ from the USGA? In many ways. The R&A, to me, is an unusual organization but certainly a necessary one and in some of the areas of golf it probably operates something like the USGA did in America about a hundred years ago. It has nothing to do with handicapping, for instance. In the world of I&B its policy is to pretty much let the USGA do the research and pay for it (and take the heat ). Imagine about fifteen members of Pine Valley trying to run the world of golf.  

The R&A is a remarkably similar organization today as it was when it evolved into the representative body for golf so many years ago, almost in the vein of default and respect from the other few clubs of that early time. The R&A is in many ways the direct link to the very beginnings of golf hundreds of years ago and in the context of tradition and continuity, that's pretty special for a sport---completely unique really.

All I can say is even if I've had my differences with the USGA over the years on a few issues my own inclination is to work in organizational and administrative golf on a local and state level to see that the USGA and the state, local and regional organizations down the line stay strong, stay vertically intergrated and promote amateur golf in their various regions as well as they possibly can.

There's no question in my mind--none--that if the USGA was to basically go down or become less relevent than it is and has been, golf as we've always known it would change and become something we all would very likely regret.

[JESII]

There's no question in my mind--none--that if the USGA was to basically go down or become less relevent than it is and has been, golf as we've always known it would change and become something we all would very likely regret.

Agreed,and I see it as the responsibility of you and your peers around the country to secure very close working relationships with the USGA that will last several cycles of office. I am not sure how the USGA feels about that idea (maybe they already function and operate closely with the state and local golf associations) but I'd be curious what their view is about the OHIO Golf Association and its tournament ball idea.

[TEPaul]

"....but I'd be curious what their view is about the OHIO Golf Association and its tournament ball idea."

Sully:

Me too. I've been thinking about that constantly for well over a month now. The way that will play out in the end probably will have a whole lot less to do with the concept of a "competition" ball than it will with another basically structural Rules issue---eg a clarification of the authority/autonomy between the USGA and state, regional and local associations in the area of "Conditions of Competition" and the ability of a "committee" to set their own (or not) under the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf.

Rules #33 and #34 and the Appendix of the Rule Book are areas that most golfers don't concern themselves with (and are scarely aware of). I call those three the "administrators areas" of the Rules of Golf.  

I think that's where this OGA issue will ultimately play out and more interestingly there seems to be very, very little precedent for guidance. I think that's where the Ohio issue will set a real precedent.

[ForkaB]

Tom and Jim

I see the OGA situation as informing us as to exactly what the USGA should be doing, which is (with some exceptions) NOTHING!

As Mao said--"Let a thousand flowers bloom!"  If the OGA's experiment with the competition ball fails, let it fail.  If it sparks interest and intrigue, let it flourish.  The USGA would be so much more influential and effective if it adopted some sort of laissez faire attitude to golf in the States and let it be what it ought to be, a cauldron of technical innovation and new ideas.  Let the old farts at the R&A act as the sentinels for tradition.  Have the USGA be constantly pushing the envelope and testing them, not sucking up to them as they do now.

Regardlesss of what either or both of you think, the game of golf will be VERY different 30 years from now than it is today, and the USGA is more likely to be a museum than a dynamic entity then.

Chris Kane has it right, as did Mao.......