Feature Interview with Grant Spaeth is posted

[Ran Morrissett]

After reading his biography and after reading his answers to this month’s Feature Interview, there is one conclusion that can be drawn about Grant Spaeth: he epitomizes the Man in the Arena as described by Theodore Roosevelt in his famous speech at the Sorbonne in 1910.

In part, Roosevelt said, “It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”

That man is Grant Spaeth. We all know of the distance problem and the technology issue and the slow play issue. These and other things are choking the fun out of our beloved game. Mr. Spaeth has been in the arena, wrestling with these issues for decades to help the game that he obviously cares for deeply. As he notes in regards to the ball, ‘The process must be thorough and fair. How to solve the problem of the “ball going to far” is not easy. Liability is not an issue. Doing it correctly is.” Those are the words of someone who at least has tried and continues to do so.

Hope you enjoy this Feature Interview, which was largely organized and orchestrated by our friend on the West Coast, Joel Stewart.

For next month’s one, we are off to Ireland.

Cheers,

[RJ_Daley]

It was nice to hear Mr. Spaeth's perspective, and he seems like he is quite sympatico with most things your read here on GCA.com.

I think the only thing I can cross examine is the fact that at first his comparison to installing golf in the olympics was like taking coal to Newcastle, then changing due to consideration that some countries say they won't support golf growth 'unless' it is in the olympics.  I think Mr. Spaeth had it right in the first place.  Those other countries wouldn't make any significant dent in the overall demographics of their citizens playing or having venues to play.  In such countries, it would remain a sport of the aristocracy or ruling politicos, anyway.   I don't think golf and the olympics makes sense, either.

[Joel_Stewart]

It was a pleasure to really get to know him.  No question was out of bounds and he was very thoughtful.  The man is a walking history book.

[Brent Hutto]

It is true that our handicap system, which requires 'putting out' even in match play when you have already won or lost a hole, does not help. Should we change that? Maybe.  (The British play faster than we do in part, I suspect, because their handicap system is not so designed.)

To amplify his point, it is not just the time required for taking those couple extra strokes on a hole that is already won or lost. It is that by reinforcing a stroke-play mentality you change the entire approach which USA golfers take to the game. Medal play is in any circumstance a slower affair than match play and the handicap system provides a strong and constant message that the slower medal game is the only way to play.

[JohnV]

While the handicap system deserves some of the blame, only about 1/3 of golfers have handicaps and since most of them are private course players, why are public courses so slow?

The entire mentality of, "I paid my greens fees and I want to hit all the shots" (except that 18 inch putt that I might miss) is a bigger problem.  Ask almost any American why he won't play Foursomes and he'll tell you that he wants to play all the shots, not just half of them.

Want to take 30 or more minutes off the time for golf.  Get rid of the fourth player.   Groups of 3 or less only.  Want to make it even faster, get rid of the 3rd player.  Or only let 4 players out in the morning if the play alternate shot.

Ran / Joel, great interview, hope you can get some other ex-USGA folks to speak up.  Sandy Tatum would be another good one.

[John Kirk]

Mr. Spaeth and my father became good friends during my dad's last few years.  They worked together on a few projects for the Stanford University golf course.  I'll read the interview here shortly.  In the meantime, let me say Mr. Spaeth has been generous to me, and had very kind words for my father.

As a player, Grant has a gift.  I played with him six or eight years ago, and as a golfer of around 70 years old, the man could still play and play with power.  Like my old man, Grant could still knock it out there.

Grant, if you're looking in to see the commentary, I'm sure we both remember "rabbit eyes" fondly.

[Josh Smith]

Ran,

           An interview subject like Grant seems to raise the mean intelligence making interviews with people like me possible.   I am indebted.

           I really felt honored to meet Grant twice now in the last year.  I have been at Cal Club 2 years now as an assistant greenskeeper, and it took meeting Grant for me to learn about the great history of one of our particular old head pros.  A guy, Art Bell that played in a couple of Masters and was supposed to be a really great man.  Now I hope I can take that knowledge and get the club to display that history more prominently.  I wonder how much more useful knowledge one could gain with more than a mere 15 minutes with a man like Grant, sheesh.  Thank you for the interview page.

           I hope that more interviews, biographies, reports etc continue to be made of men that have contributed to the game the way Grant, and Sandy Tatum etc. have.  As they say, without those who came before us, where would we be? 

[Joel_Stewart]

           An interview subject like Grant seems to raise the mean intelligence making interviews with people like me possible.

I was worried about that in the final draft which is surprising because when you speak with him, he never comes across that way.  He is a great guy to sit down with and have a beer and just chew the fat.  He has many interests, in fact my first meeting was done at the Asian Art Museum in San Francisco as he and his wife where preparing for a trip to China.   (He was in China when the earthquake happened yet never felt it as he was riding in a rickshaw).

Anyway he is very thoughtful. 

You would be surprised to see the first 20 questions we asked, only about 5 ended up on the final questions as he steered us into territory we never thought about.

[Dan King]

Mr. Spaeth is one of my favorite people in the world. I worked with him for a number of years and we have remained friends since then.

I played The Old Course once with him and the caddy was shocked when he found out Biggie was a R&A member. He said he didn't act at all like R&A.

Sitting talking golf, and drinking with Mr. Spaeth is about as enjoyable as it gets. I've had this vision of getting Mr. Spaeth and Mr. Huntley together to talk about their years in golf. If there is a possibility of something being too much fun, that might just be it.

John Vander Borght writes:
While the handicap system deserves some of the blame, only about 1/3 of golfers have handicaps and since most of them are private course players, why are public courses so slow?

How many slow golfers do you think it takes to slow a course down to a crawl?

What would it takes for the USGA to recognize putting computers for posting in every golf shop was a mistake? Quantity is a failure. When will they change to quality posting?

Cheers,
Dan King

When I took up this game, at an age about five years beyond the age of anyone present, I soon deduced that most golfers were -- Midwestern, decent, upstanding, buddy-boy, knee-jerk Republicans. A suspicion that was confirmed several years later when I found myself in the locker room at Augusta and I ran into two journalists who were interviewing the leading money winner of the year. Just then, Tom Watson had won his first tournament. I believe. One of the reporters said to the pro (who shall be unmentionable): "Frank," he said, "is this Watson a comer-good?" And Frank the Unmentionable said: "Sure, he's good. He may be very good. Of Course, he's a kook." "A what?" "A kook." "How so?" Well," said Frank, "First of all, he a Democrat. How kooky can you get?"
Well the word I have to pass on to you is that your new President, El Presidente Ess-Pah-ate (Spaeth) is a kook. And as for his friend, Tatum, he once voted for John Anderson! He is a Super Kook.
 So. it's a personal pleasure and privilege for me to pay tribute to not only the second member of the San Francisco Golf Club to become your President but also the second kook. I leave you, though, with the assurance, which I'm sure Grant will confirm, that nevertheless -- some of our best friends are Republicans.
 --Alistair Cooke (On the Inauguration of President Grant to the USGA presidency)

[Brent Hutto]

How many slow golfers do you think it takes to slow a course down to a crawl?

What would it takes for the USGA to recognize putting computers for posting in every golf shot was a mistake? Quantity is a failure. When will they change to quality posting?

Point taken about you only need a few slowpokes to kill the pace of the entire course. That said, the every-stroke-is-sacred meme is but one of many cultural factors causing the five-hour round of golf.

But to answer your second question, I don't think one golfer in a thousand believes there's anything wrong with the handicap system beyond it being "too complicated". I don't know how many times I've been regaled with diatribes about the stupidity of Equitable Stroke Control and how hideously complex it makes scorekeeping.

Ask a typical American golfer how they liked a new course they just played for the first time. The answer will be something like "The greens were a little grainy. I shot 82." with no awareness that a two-digit number fails to summarize the complex experience of their four to five hours on the golf course. The handicap system is as much a result of the American golfer's obsession with medal scores as a cause of it.

[JohnV]

Come on, Equitable Stroke Control speeds up golf.  How many times have you played with a guy who has hit it 7 or 8 times and says, "Thats all I can take" and picks up.

All you who hate the "hole it out" mentality should love ESC.

Dan,

Come off it.  Holing out isn't the problem.  I can make an 8 quicker than 99% of golfers can make a 3.  Not being ready to play, spending too much time telling old rehashed jokes on every tee, taking 3 or 5 practice swings, riding around in a cart with no idea where your ball is, and all the other things that the average clueless golfer does are a lot bigger problem.

[Dan King]

John Vander Borght writes:
Come off it.  Holing out isn't the problem.  I can make an 8 quicker than 99% of golfers can make a 3.  Not being ready to play, spending too much time telling old rehashed jokes on every tee, taking 3 or 5 practice swings, riding around in a cart with no idea where your ball is, and all the other things that the average clueless golfer does are a lot bigger problem.

So when you said the handicap system deserves some of the blame, what were you referring to?

Many things contribute to slow play. I fail to see why that would give the USGA carte blanche to not worry about how slow U.S. golf has become. Shouldn't part of the responsibility of the USGA be to improve the pace of play?

Cheers,
Dan King

Cyril Walker played so slowly they asked him to hurry up, and he became abusive. He said, "Who the hell are you? I'm, an ex-U.S. Open Champion." This was about 1931, he won the Open in 1924. He said he came out 3,000 miles to play in their diddy-bump tournament (L.A.Open), and they couldn't kick him out, he'd play as slow as he damn well pleased. Well, when he came ot the ninth hole, they told him he was disqualified and he said, "The hell I am! I came here to play and I'm going to play." So these two officers picked him up by the elbows and I can still see him being carried up the hill, kicking his legs like a banty -- he was a small man.
 --Paul Runyan

[Kevin_Reilly]

Good interview -- thanks much.  Joel or Ran, you might want to fix a typo in the answer to question #4...of course Shinnecock was 1986.

[Brent Hutto]

Come on, Equitable Stroke Control speeds up golf.  How many times have you played with a guy who has hit it 7 or 8 times and says, "Thats all I can take" and picks up.

All you who hate the "hole it out" mentality should love ESC.

John,

I do in fact applaud the presence of ESC. I was invoking those frequent tirades against it as illustrative of the typical golfer's cluelessness is about the handicap system.

Not only can most golfers not appreciate the disconnect between the Nassau match they are playing and their belief in counting every stroke after the hole is lost or won...that's way too abstract a thought...they can't even understand how ESC works or why it is there. And I'm talking about CPA's and lawyers here. There's something about golf, scorekeeping and handicapping that makes otherwise intelligent grown men revert to infantile thinking.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ran,

I had the good fortune to meet Grant many years ago at USGA events, mainly the Mid-Am, before he was elected President of the USGA.

I liked him from the get-go and enjoyed many discussions with him, some over rulings, some about golf in general and some on non-golf issues.

Grant admirably merged the "player's perspective' with his legal mind when viewing rules situations.

He's a neat guy and I wish I had kept in closer contact with him.

I wish he and other past Presidents had more influence on the "competition ball" issue. 

[JohnV]

Dan,  Yes, some part of the blame can go to the handicap system, but to assume that it is anywhere near the prime cause of slow play is crazy.

Should the USGA do something about it?  Yes.  The starting doing the time par system quite a few years ago, but clubs didn't seem to care about publicizing it.  They certainly could do more.  I'd love for them to do a series of commercials to run during the Open about pace of play.

Brent,
If the average golfer can't understand ESC, it says something about the state of education in America more than anything else.  If your handicap is 9 or less, take a double bogey.  If it is 9-18 take a 7, if it is 19-27 take an 8 etc.  Pretty darn hard to understand if you ask me.  I guarantee you that every one of the people who claim they can't understand it could tell you their handicap off the top of their head.  How hard is it to map it?

[Jon Spaulding]

Used to watch the man's rules segment on "Hooked on Golf", and always found his sense of humor enlightening.

I had the chance to talk to him at the Shell match between Watson & Nicklaus at Pebble some time ago, and he could not have been any friendlier.

[Jim Nugent]

While the handicap system deserves some of the blame, only about 1/3 of golfers have handicaps and since most of them are private course players, why are public courses so slow?

Some possibilities: 

1.  Lots more traffic on public courses.  Slows down play, just like rush hour slows down driving.

2.  Public course players, on average, are worse.  They take more strokes, must chase down and find more shots.

[Sean_A]

Thanks Ran & Joel.  That was a very enjoyable read.  I feel as though I really got a sense of the man.  It is also heartening to know that so many people seem to be acquainted with Mr Spaeth - a commendable trait for a man representing so many people.

Brent is right concerning handicaps.  Its the mindset which slows the game down as much as taking the extra unnecessary strokes.  Of course there are other reasons for slow play, but the USGA does control the handicapping system.  This is the first failure.  I know many think the system works, but when only 1/3 of golfers hold a cap how successful is that?  Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, the USGA can better enforce time allowance on televised tournaments.  Seeing pros get nailed for slow play during the US Open could have a serious trickle down effect.  It could mean that the time targets have to be even more restricted - say a goal of playing in 3.5 hours and referring accordingly. 

Ciao
 

[Brent Hutto]

John,

As best as I can tell from the rather irrational comments I've heard, there are two things that hang people up concerning ESC. One minor, one more fundamental.

The minor hangup is that you'd be surprised how confused people can be about the entire concept of their Course Handicap. At my club for instance the computer screen (and BTW these guys do not grok any distinction between the club's computer software and the handicap system) gives them an "Index", an "Instant Index" which is updated with each score entered, a "Handicap" (that's the Course Handicap) and an "Instant Handicap". First off having all those numbers on the screen at once freaks some people out. Secondly, we have a 27-hole club with different slope ratings for the three combinations so even the "Handicap" is only correct if you're playing one specific combination of nines. But they've been educated to use the "Instant Handicap" without regard for the fact that's not based on their USGA index and ignoring the fact that it may be wrong if you play another pair of nine. They also tend to quote their "Instant Handicap" when they travel.

In other words, many of these guys have no concept of the relationship between their Handicap Index and their Course Handicap for a specific course. All they expect is for the shitty software's screen to give them one single number that they can use in every situation. So even when they apply ESC they are doing it based on a potentially incorrect Course Handicap. But of course the ESC bins are wide enough that will infrequently cause more than a stroke here or stroke there in error. But all those numbers on the screen has them pre-confused before they even start.

The more important issue is that some people, and I mean a fair proportion of people I meet who have handicaps, can not or will not wrap their minds around any adjustment to their Score for purposes of handicapping. Either the handicap is based on the Score they shoot or else it is somehow cheating or fudging or otherwise being based on incorrect information. I'm not exaggerating, these guys think the handicap system is trying to put something over on them by telling them to enter a 7 on a hole and an 82 as a Score when they know it was really a 9 and an 84. So to their mind the whole system is illegitimate because it's not using their "real" Score.

Now the joke of it is they will fudge that Score by always hitting two off the first tee, dropping a ball at the edge of the fairway and counting one stroke for an OB shot (there is a oft-invoked "rule" that our club has no Out of Bounds, notwithstanding the several holes lines by white stakes, the members regularly retrieve their ball from OB and drop it inside the stakes with no penalty), picking up six-foot gimme putts and otherwise making sure their score doesn't get higher than their comfort zone. So the Score they come up with is often 4-8 strokes lower than it would be if they were playing by the Rules of Golf  yet the fact that ESC tells them to enter 82 instead of the 84 they think they shot is evidence that the entire system is based on false scores.

The amount of BS that has accumulated in the minds of golfers around score keeping and handicapping is quite amazing. And by the say, nobody ever refers to the USGA Handicap System or uses terms like Handicap Index or Course Handicap. There are two terms that everyone knows, "Handicap" and the "The Computer". So when they say "Handicap" they mean whatever number they've been instructed to read off the screen and the source from which that "Handicap" originates is "The Computer". And the inner workings are a total mystery to the typical club golfer, they only know that "Course Rating" and "Slope Rating" exists because the pro has to call and get those numbers for them when they play an away round.

And don't even get me started on the complaints when the Par 5's became the first Stroke Index on our scorecards a couple years ago. Because "everyone knows" there are a couple of Par 4's that are much harder than the Par 5's and ought to be the first Stroke Index holes like they were for a couple decades before the change.

[John Keenan]

On the issue of pace of play if there was one specific issue that could be remedied then it would be a relatively easy issue to fix. The problem is it is not one issue but rather a group of activities that added together lead to an overall slow down.

As noted not being ready to play, long long searches for lost balls, marking and remarking putts. OK this one drives me nuts just putt out this is not the PGA I will not be offended in fact I prefer you to. I would also agree at some time pick it up take your score and move along.

Last but not least is the PGA on TV they set the bar for slow play but admittedly their income is on the line sadly the weekend golfer sees it and emulates on his course.

On the Grant Spaeth interview he is super person and the Hooked on Golf segments on rules were great and quite informative. Sandy Tatum would also make a good interview I would suspect.

[John Kirk]

Here's a picture of the 1953 Stanford national championship team.  Grant Spaeth is second from the top left.  On his left (our right) is Art Schroeder, who I played golf with many, many times.



I'm so glad to hear that greens are being restored at Stanford, based on newly discovered aerial photos.  It is a fabulous place, a great walk, and though the renovated greens designed by John Harbottle provide a worthy challenge, the club deserves to have its course restored to the original Bell/Thomas design as much as possible.

[MargaretC]

Ran:

Thank you so much for doing this interview.  This man's photo should appear next to the definition of "Class Act."

I think I am in my 12th year of golfing.  My grandfather-in-law introduced me to the game.  Pace of play was one of his hot buttons and it has become one of mine.  As a relatively new golfer and a parent of 6 who are learning the game, "holing-out" (within reason) is, IMO, less of a problem than being observant and ready to play.  If a golfer is observant, he will see where his ball lands; he will know when it is his turn to play, etc., etc., etc.

Late one Sunday afternoon, we teed-off (all 8 of us) 3 holes behind a group of 4 men (the course was wide-open in front of this group of 4).  We caught-up to this group on the 6th hole.  At that point, my husband and I started to time them.  We were 5.5 minutes faster off the tee than that group of 4 adults.  We called it a day after 9-holes.  The majority of the excess time was the result of not paying attention and not being ready to play.  I stopped counting the number of practice swings they took because it was obscene. 

I like the idea of USGA commercials emphasing pace-of-play.  I would also like to see the PGA Tour do something -- both in terms of strict enforcement of pace of play as well as commercials.  How many times have you seen a Tour player take forever to set-up a shot and still blow-it 40% - 50%? 

[Carl Nichols]

John,

As best as I can tell from the rather irrational comments I've heard, there are two things that hang people up concerning ESC. One minor, one more fundamental.

The minor hangup is that you'd be surprised how confused people can be about the entire concept of their Course Handicap. At my club for instance the computer screen (and BTW these guys do not grok any distinction between the club's computer software and the handicap system) gives them an "Index", an "Instant Index" which is updated with each score entered, a "Handicap" (that's the Course Handicap) and an "Instant Handicap". First off having all those numbers on the screen at once freaks some people out. Secondly, we have a 27-hole club with different slope ratings for the three combinations so even the "Handicap" is only correct if you're playing one specific combination of nines. But they've been educated to use the "Instant Handicap" without regard for the fact that's not based on their USGA index and ignoring the fact that it may be wrong if you play another pair of nine. They also tend to quote their "Instant Handicap" when they travel.

In other words, many of these guys have no concept of the relationship between their Handicap Index and their Course Handicap for a specific course. All they expect is for the shitty software's screen to give them one single number that they can use in every situation. So even when they apply ESC they are doing it based on a potentially incorrect Course Handicap. But of course the ESC bins are wide enough that will infrequently cause more than a stroke here or stroke there in error. But all those numbers on the screen has them pre-confused before they even start.

The more important issue is that some people, and I mean a fair proportion of people I meet who have handicaps, can not or will not wrap their minds around any adjustment to their Score for purposes of handicapping. Either the handicap is based on the Score they shoot or else it is somehow cheating or fudging or otherwise being based on incorrect information. I'm not exaggerating, these guys think the handicap system is trying to put something over on them by telling them to enter a 7 on a hole and an 82 as a Score when they know it was really a 9 and an 84. So to their mind the whole system is illegitimate because it's not using their "real" Score.

Amazing.  This isn't rocket science. 

[Lynn_Shackelford]

Like some before, I am surprised how many of us have met Grant.  A very modest man, the kind you wish you could spend more time with, especially playing a round of golf.