[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Let me first state that I think the USGA has done a wonderful job over the years in many areas.

Like any organization, they've stumbled now and then.

I think the I&B issue is one of those areas where they stumbled.

I do think that there's a price of admission to the Executive Committee that stifles debate.


As to the Executive Committee, I've known a good number of Executive Committee members and in the overwhelming number of cases they were terrific individuals, deeply involved and committed to golf and upholding its traditions.

Is anyone suggesting that novices, far removed from golf be appointed to the Executive Committee ?

What candidates would you suggest ?
And, would they commit the time necessary to adequately perform their responsibilities ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Just because the R&A was allegedly "AWOL" on most of the I&B issues doesn't mean they are incapable of dealing with it, they may have just chosen not to.

I submit that it does mean that they've been incapable of dealing with I&B issues and that there's nothing to indicate that they could change their spots in the future.[/color]

But they are certainly in a position to handle the matter.

It seems many take the position that the USGA was AWOL on the issue as well.

Evidently, you've never heard the joke where the punchline was: "His brother was worse"

The R&A lagged far, far behind the USGA on the I&B issue.

Some would say that they forfeited or abdicated their role to the USGA.[/color]
 

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

In my opinion, there is no question at all of the accuracy of the last two lines of your last post. No question at all. And one wonders why. It's probably a matter of an unwillingness to take any heat at all combined with an unwillingness to spend any money on the issue which frankly they may not even have.

On the other hand since 2002 the USGA has spent $10 million studying everything they can about the dynamics of the golf ball and in combination with equipment.

Of course, everyone will ask what has the USGA done about any of this to date. I'd rather ask what are they about to do, because I think they're getting ready to do something.

And if they do let's hope this time the R&A goes along with them unlike that COR fiasco.

You think the USGA is worried about getting sued by manufacturers? It looks to me like the R&A is five times more worried about that. Just a few years ago they split the R&A into two separate entities after all these years probably mostly for that reason alone.

[Mark Bourgeois]

COR Schenectady putter fiasco!

Tom Paul,

If they are going to do something, how will they win the hearts and minds battle?  Don't the equipment companies likely have an even larger advantage than in the courtroom, namely marketing skill and sympathy to what the "average golfer" wants.

It seems like the kind of effort that requires a grassroots organization.  Do you agree?

Mark

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

Among the "social Golfing changes" that might be addressed by members of the USGA, is the one about equality in play for members. e.g. - Women may only play a course at certain times.

Among the ways that this may be addressed is by the UASGA no longer allowing members of the Green Section to advise courses where this practice exists.

Will it happen? Probably not, but my point was that those on the Executive Committee are all pretty sharp in all areas of life and business and are not "shy wallflower types" who are controlled by a single person (e.g. - Walter Driver at this moment).

They are not "Yes Men and Women" to Walter. For all the things that he has done while leading the USGA, he didn't become inept the day he was appointed as President by the Board.

Please understand that I am not being critical of the Executive Committee, but that I am of the opinion that the individuals on it cannot complain about problems within golf or the USGA itself if they are not actively working to correct them.

That is why they areon the Executive Committee...

[Steve Lang]

 

TEP.. did you mean bernie taupin, elton's lyricist?

On Topic..  No

My alternative $0.02..
1) Take a poll of gca.com on what the usga should be doing
2) publish the best of it in a paid ad in USA today or perhaps the Far Hills, NJ Villager or whatever the local paper is there..
3)  solicit a response to be posted on the usga website..

[Patrick_Mucci]

COR Schenectady putter fiasco!

Tom Paul,

If they are going to do something, how will they win the hearts and minds battle?  Don't the equipment companies likely have an even larger advantage than in the courtroom, namely marketing skill and sympathy to what the "average golfer" wants.

It seems like the kind of effort that requires a grassroots organization.  Do you agree?

Mark,

If the USGA did what the average golfer wants, it would be the begining of the demise of golf and the USGA.

The game would be ruined in a heart beat.

One of the things that's seperated golf from all other sports is the preservation of traditions and fundamental concepts, to the exclusion and resistance of catering to fads and/or popular opinion.

I'm with Bob Huntley.

I don't see the need to "grow the game".
That seems like commercialization to me.

Expose the game to the public.
If they like it, they will come.
If they don't, the game in its present form will continue to provide enjoyment, challenge and interest to me and most of the folks who like/love GOLF as I do.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Among the "social Golfing changes" that might be addressed by members of the USGA, is the one about equality in play for members. e.g. - Women may only play a course at certain times.

That's a crock of S....

Tee times at most clubs are inextricably connected to the equality of the initiation and dues structure.

If you pay and equal amount in initiation and dues, you get equal tee times.

If you pay nothing in initiation and very little or nothing in dues, why should you be granted equality with someone who pays full freight for both ?

In addition, there are only so many available, "ideal" tee times in a day.

You can't get every golfer off at 8:00 am on Saturday and Sunday.  Some have to go off earlier and some have to go off later.  At a great many clubs, that's determined by two things.
1   Membership category ($)
2   Lottery or sign up.

If I've paid my initiation fee in full and my dues in full, why should someone who has paid nothing get equal treatment when it comes to using the facility ?[/color]

Among the ways that this may be addressed is by the UASGA no longer allowing members of the Green Section to advise courses where this practice exists.

That tops almost all of TEPaul's suggestions which qualified as amongst the dumbest ever made.[/color]

Will it happen? Probably not, but my point was that those on the Executive Committee are all pretty sharp in all areas of life and business and are not "shy wallflower types" who are controlled by a single person (e.g. - Walter Driver at this moment).

Your comments reflect a lack of understanding of the issues and dynamics at the local club level.

How do you reconcile equalizing two members, one who has paid full initiation and full dues and the other who has paid nothing ?

How do you give them equal privileges at a golf club or any other facility ?

Now, let's throw the children of members into the mix.
Let's let them have equal rights and tee times.
Note: Chaos to follow.

Do you know who objects to single/married, successful women joining a club ?

Do you know who objects to them playing with the men ?

Hint:  It's not the men.[/color]

They are not "Yes Men and Women" to Walter. For all the things that he has done while leading the USGA, he didn't become inept the day he was appointed as President by the Board.

Correct, and that's why he's stayed out of an issue that's not his domain.  An issue that you don't understand.[/color]

Please understand that I am not being critical of the Executive Committee, but that I am of the opinion that the individuals on it cannot complain about problems within golf or the USGA itself if they are not actively working to correct them.

You can't correct a problem that YOU perceive exists, despite not knowing the intricacies of the issues at the local level, if you don't have the authority to do so.

That's simply not their bailiwick

You're misinformed and misguided on this issue.[/color]

That is why they are on the Executive Committee...

[Mark Bourgeois]

Patrick,

No, they shouldn't cater to the "average golfer" any more than they should cater to the "rich golfer." Part of leadership is communication, making sure your point is understood and supported as widely as possible.

Seriously, what happens if they roll back the ball, and the equipment companies come out and say things like, "The USGA is trying to make a difficult game even harder for you...(or) Would you like to hit the ball more crooked?...(or) You can play Phil Mickelson's ball, but we don't recommend it."

And what happens if they get an "Arnold Palmer (Callaway)" scenario?

Seriously, I don't have any idea, but if I were them I would be deeply concerned about this.  They could win the lawsuit but lose credibility in the eyes of the public.  What would happen then? Would it have an impact? Given the way the world works these days, I would bet that it would, somehow.

As they say in Washington, the perception of power, is power.

If I were them, I would not just build a legal fund, I would be trying to lay the public relations groundwork.

Mark

[Phil_the_Author]

Patrick, you misunderstand what I am trying to say, and for that I'll take the blame.

My original post was in response to a series of statements made by Tom.

He stated, "The day the USGA can't attract 15 people to populate the board and an Executive Director who are qualified and capable enough to run their own affairs is the day I stop becoming a dues paying member and the day I'd recommend other dues paying members do the same..."

He responded to your comments about that & other statements with, "You didn't tell me anything of the kind. I've been on the boards of these kinds of organizations and also totally aware of the way the USGA works for about 20 years before I ever knew you and your over-arching opinions..."

When he was challenged about the ethnic make-up of the Executive Committee he stated, "So if Geoffrey Yang has made a success of himself what do you think he is now, a WASP? There's also an African American on the Board. If he's made a success of himself has he turned into an elistist WASP too?..    Apparently you also think belonging to Pine Valley or Augusta should disqualify a board member too...  That's interesting. I wonder how the women members of the Executive Committee feel about that..."

I felt that he began carefully dancing around the idea of exactly how much responsibility the USGA's Executive Committee bears for the poor direction of Walter Driver and/or others throughout the years.

It is very easy to rip Mr. Driver apart but what is forgotten is, as I previously wrote, that "They are not "Yes Men and Women" to Walter. For all the things that he has done while leading the USGA, he didn't become inept the day he was appointed as President by the Board..."

If there is validity to indicting Driver for poor job performance then the rest of the executive board must be equally indicted for having allowed it to happen and to let it continue.

My response to Tom about tee times was flippant because I find it hard to believe that he could not understand what i meant when I said about the women members of the Executive Committee, "They certainly are in a unique position to elicit social golfing changes if they feel it is both relevant and important enough... And for this they need neither public opinions or supporting polls..."

I maintain that position.

Every member of the Executive Committee is talented in many areas of business and life. I believe that the USGA is not as inept an organization as has been portrayed so easily in the writings of a number of well-known golf bloggists; rather they are riding a wave of inertia created in part by those who have come before and by an inability to act in a fashion that is timely and able to address large issues that explode upon the golf community.

A great example of this is technology. A 5-yard increase in driving distance is not all that much and doesn't warrant immediate emergency action. 5 yards per year for 15 years is now 75 and brings along with it even larger amounts of criticisms and condemnations for both what was and wasn't done.

No one in 1950, more than 50 years AFTER the USGA was formed, could have predicted the issues, popularity, importance and scale of events surrounding, conducted and brought about by the USGA. Yet it was during these tiles that the structure and procedures for the organization were put in place.

The USGA (IMHO) is suffering from the same problems that the Steel and Automobile and many other large industries went through. They are now paying the price for their successes. Just as General Motors needed Mazda and Toyota to create an organization that can attempt to deal with 21st century transportation issues, the USGA needs a competitor that would force it to make the changes necessary to stay relevant in many important areas effecting the game. Unfortunately for all that is not going to happen.

That is why it is more important than ever for the individual members of the Executive Committee to accept the mantle of personal leadership "for the good of the Game" they took upon themselves when they agreed to serve in these capacities.

They need to mold themselves into a cohesive leadership group and LEAD rather than wait and follow...

The rest of us must remember, and this is goes back to the original question raised in the thread, that it is so much easier to criticize and condemn by those who don't bear the burden of paying the price for making the decisions.




 

[TEPaul]

"the USGA needs a competitor that would force it to make the changes necessary to stay relevant in many important areas effecting the game. Unfortunately for all that is not going to happen."

Phil:

The USGA needs a competitor??

Who would that be? In my opinion, the last thing the USGA needs is competition in what they do. That alone would probably destroy them. What they need is vertical monopoly in the things they control which thankfully they've always enjoyed. That's been the key to their success all these years. That includes the playing rules and the I&B Rules. All these years golfers have generally followed their lead in those areas and if that chances dramatically (through competition) golf as we've always known it would probably be gone forever.


"The rest of us must remember, and this is goes back to the original question raised in the thread, that it is so much easier to criticize and condemn by those who don't bear the burden of paying the price for making the decisions."


That sure is the truth Philip. There're a lot of people even on here who are real good at criticism and condemnation of the USGA because they just aren't in a position of the kind of responsibility that those people on the Executive Committee have in the real world of golf today.

To answer your question and your suggestion that the USGA should withold Green Section advice from clubs who don't allow women members equal playing time-----NO, I do not think that's the kind of thing the USGA EVER needs to get into.

Matter of fact, I think the USGA should get the hell out of any form of "social engineering" whatsoever, and just stick with what they're there for-----to protect the integrity of the game of golf" through the administration of the Rules---eg playing Rules and I&B Rules and Regs (their Tech Center), amateur status, their handicap system, Green Section and their own championships, their Museum and Library of golf AND ARCHITECTURE.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

No, they shouldn't cater to the "average golfer" any more than they should cater to the "rich golfer."

Part of leadership is communication, making sure your point is understood and supported as widely as possible.

That's where we disgree.
Making the right decision isn't necessarilly making the most popular decision.
But, I do agree that communicating the circumstances leading to and resulting in a decision is prudent.[/color]

Seriously, what happens if they roll back the ball, and the equipment companies come out and say things like, "The USGA is trying to make a difficult game even harder for you...(or) Would you like to hit the ball more crooked?...(or) You can play Phil Mickelson's ball, but we don't recommend it."


Do you believe that everything the equipment companies allege is ..... TRUE ?

They have but one goal, sales and profits.
They're commercial enterprises who don't have the best interests of the game at heart.

The difficulty of the game is one of its inherent lures and virtues.  If it was easy, who would play golf ?

The manufacturers will always do what's in their "commercial" best interest.

It's the USGA's responsibility to do what's in "GOLF's" best interest, and because of that, there will ALWAYS be a conflict between the two.

So, for me, the manufacturer's opinions on what's good for the game are forever tainted by the very nature of their existance, the profit motive.[/color]

And what happens if they get an "Arnold Palmer (Callaway)" scenario?

That was an unfortunate circumstance.
I felt "embarrased" for Palmer and "shame" on Callaway.
Sometimes, it's difficult to exit, stage left, and acknowledge that "The King is dead, long live the King"

Catering to what the manufacturers want or catering to what the public wants is not in the best interest of the game.

The game has evolved successfully over centuries for valid reasons, and some of those reasons are the R&A and the USGA, and not the manufacturers or public opinion.

I'll guarantee you, that if you put it to a vote, the public would choose holes that are 5.5 inches wide as opposed to 4.25 inches wide, and 16 clubs versus 14 clubs.

Is that what you want to do, modify the game vis a vis referendums.

The R&A and USGA have been wonderful stewards of the game over these many years.  Lacking pefection is no reason to dismantle or disregard them[/color]

Seriously, I don't have any idea, but if I were them I would be deeply concerned about this.  They could win the lawsuit but lose credibility in the eyes of the public.  

You're misguided.
The longevity and success of the game isn't dependent upon public opinion.  It's dependent upon an inherent challenge, a code and tradition.

Do you think golf would become unraveled if the USGA won a lawsuit rolling back I&B ?

Is that what happened throughout the world when the R&A went to the American ball ?

Did golf cease to become fun, did it become less popular because it became more difficult for those affected by the switch to the American ball ?

NO, it didn't.

And, it won't if the I&B are rolled back tomorrow.[/color]

What would happen then? Would it have an impact? Given the way the world works these days, I would bet that it would, somehow.

And I'll bet that it wouldn't.
The refreshing thing about golf is it's the antithesis of "the way the world works these days", that's part of its beauty, its lure.  It's a throwback, a retention of traditions, centuries old that continue to intrique, inspire and challenge us.

Golf REMOVES us from "the way the world works these days"

It extracts people from their business/professional world.
It extracts people from their social and family world.
It places us in a unique setting where we can forget "the way the world works these days" and focus on the inherent challenge and fun that the game presents, in a natural setting.

Whining about making the game more difficult is nonsense.

Golf was more popular when it was more difficult, pre high-tech.

Without difficulty, there is no challenge.
Without challenge, there is no golf.[/color]

As they say in Washington, the perception of power, is power.

That just means that people are uninformed.
Reality and perception are often worlds apart.[/color]

If I were them, I would not just build a legal fund, I would be trying to lay the public relations groundwork.

Why ?
For what purpose ?
The game, "GOLF" sells itself.
You don't need to sell "golf"
Once the "bug" hits you, you're hooked.

But, the manufacturers NEED to SELL their wares.
That's why they advertise.
And the R&A and USGA can't and shouldn't compete with their advertising budgets.

Stop worrying about the "public"
Focus instead on why you're paying $ 500 for a driver or
$ 250 on a putter that costs $ 25 to make.
Then figure how much of the purchase price went toward the manufacturer's advertising budget.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Philip Young,

I don't think you can analyze any organization, especially a volunteer organization, without examining it from a historical perspective, and in the context of the evolutionary process.

Like most other organizations, including the government of the United States, they evolve with time.

I don't think you can examine any organization by applying today's standards for the purpose of examining the organization 20, 40, 60 and 80 years ago.  That's patently unfair.

Things were dramatically different 20, 40, 60 and 80 years ago.
I think organizations and social mores have to be examined, analyzed and judged in the context of the circumstances that existed at those specific points in time, and not by today's standards.

The workings of the USGA Executive Committee present a double edged sword.

On one hand you get fresh people involved on a constantly, rotating basis, which is good.

On the other hand, you never achieve continuity, which is bad.

Where's the balance ?

Some might say that the balance lies in the Administrative Staff at the USGA.   I would disagree with that, to a degree.

I don't know how familiar you are with running a charity or a volunteer organization, especially one with enormous responsibilities, but, it's no easy task.

When you look at what's happened to AT&T and other Icons of American business, is it any wonder that these fast changing times have had a deleterious affect upon a volunteer organization ?  But, let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.  Let's simply try to correct any mistakes and position ourselves to best be prepared for the future.

Starting a competing organization wouldn't be good for the game.
 
Whose rules are  you going to play by ?
The rules that best suit you on a particular day ?

Correcting from within would seem to be a better alternative than external competition.

[Rich Goodale]

The USGA needs a benevolent dictator.  Step up to the plate, Pat, or hold your peace......

[TEPaul]

MarkB;

Your last two or so posts are very good ones---very thoughtful.

Don't worry about Patrick Mucci's responses to them---he just babbles on in his incessently didactic way. You probably shouldn't even read his responess. They don't mean a thing.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()