Is The R&A Accessible and Accountable?

[Melvyn Morrow]

It is a serious question, 'Is The R&A Accessible and Accountable'?

(This is not IMHO an OT subject as their decisions as well as running The Open has major impact to our courses and the shaping of the current and future of golf course architecture. Also please do not consider this a snipe at the R&A but a serious effort to investigate the genuine opinions of golfers and those associated with the business of Golf.)

The Governing Body has been around for over 100 years, yet in all that time have they ever been ahead or driven the development of the game?

Have the Golf Clubs any say or representation within The R&A?
Should a Governing Body have anything to do with running Major Competitions?
Can the Governing Body be able to persuade clubs to modify their courses?

The list of concerns and question go on and on, proving to this individual that too much is wrong with the current body which IMHO desperately need reforming. Not scrapping but real reforms to make it accountable and just as important accessible.

Yes, I want to see The R&A survive but sharper, stronger, with a finger on the pulse of the game both home and international including Tournaments. Decisive reaction but with an understanding of the current and future consequences of their decisions. The strength to change poor rulings, be they past or current, and implement issues that are good and more so, in keeping with the traditions of the game.

To improving the position and reputation of the Governing Body what actions would you consider should be implemented? That is if any or what can we learn, say from USGA?

 Melvyn

[Josh Stevens]

Do you mean the R&A as it is now, or as it was prior to 2005.

Recall that it did split in two a few years back.  The old private club remained for the old boys but they were stripped of all their power, all the important bits like rules, development, running the open etc where spun into a new commercial outfit with much wider outside representation, even (gasp) ladies.

No idea how it is going, but probably no more or less accountable and accessible than the USGA.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Well no takers, that interesting.  Does that mean we will hear no more moans regards ball roll back and the course changes the R&A politely impose on pre-selected Open venues? So all are happy with the current set up and have no comments or suggestions at all.

Ops sorry, forgot its only non GCA items that interest many here like Listings/ratings of golf courses then the endless discussion that IMO this course should not have been lower or higher than that.

I find it rather intriguing that we freely discuss politics and politicians but are somewhat reticent to talk of governing bodies. I suppose that might have something to do with the ability of being able of getting rid of incompetent politicians while we can’t touch or do anything regards the poor performance of the R&A or its personnel. Has this governing body, which is only really answerable to itself, hold influence over those in the industry, that they would rather not comment even on a golfing blog site? Then perhaps it’s down to the subject matter or the author of this post.

Whatever it’s a free world – well nearly, you can’t voice your opinions in many countries of the world without looking over your shoulder, does that penetrate as far as golf’s governing body?     

[Niall C]

Whatever it’s a free world – well nearly, you can’t voice your opinions in many countries of the world without looking over your shoulder, does that penetrate as far as golf’s governing body?     

Melvyn

Surely you're not expecting to be a victim of rendition, kidnapped with a hood over your head and a one way ticket to St Andrews, are you ? 

Perhaps the lack of response is that you're going over old ground, and also perhaps that people maybe don't think the R&A are doing that bad a job. I think you know my views, over a hundred years and they have minded the shop pretty well. I really don't know how the rules are reviewed but I'm pretty sure that clubs can make ready representation to the R&A to either make a point or ask for advice, and at the end of the day, as I understand it, any club can adopt local rules to suit themselves, so where's the problem ?

Equipment ? That argument has been raging ever since your ancestor opted for progress and game improving equipment. Somewhere locked away in a garage I have the cut down hickory shafted bladey clubs I started golf with over 40 years ago and I'm damn sure that I prefer my existing clubs even if they are over 20 years old.

Fair play to the hickory brigade, I hope they enjoy themselves, but all in all I think I will stick with progress.

Niall

[Pete Lavallee]

Well no takers, that interesting.  Does that mean we will hear no more moans regards ball roll back and the course changes the R&A politely impose on pre-selected Open venues? So all are happy with the current set up and have no comments or suggestions at all.

Melvyn,

You make a ball roll back sound so simple. Just how do you expect to accomplish that? There is and has been an Overall Distance Standard for over 50 years. Balls are all tested on the Iron Byron and can only go so far. Now, it's fair to say that the Ball Manufactuers have better funding for their scientists than the USGA and R&A, so they will always be able to outsmart any current or future regulations. So do you advocate changing ball rules on a weekly, monthly or yearly basis?  You must acknowledge the real possibility of a lawsuit should the Ball Maker's right to flog their wares be infringed upon. Who will pay the legal bills to fight that fight? Are you ready to put your ass and money on the line? You make it sound so simple, but if it was that easy I doubt we'de be having this discussion now!

[Melvyn Morrow]

Niall

You say for the last 100 years they have fairly well minded the shop. Sorry I feel their record for the last 60-100 years is rather poor. Not just re the ball, golf but their other interests off the course are nearly as bad, in fact may surpass their performance re the game.

It’s the same old stuff, but is it because you feel they have done rather well when I see the opposite. It certainly may be old stuff but it’s never seen the light of day, which in my book is not the same old stuff. Over the last 5-6 years I have been advised by various club Chairman’s that they are not happy with the R&A. On the golf side I have taken their lead as to the unhappy state that seems to exist between them and the R&A as I have my own complaints re their performance on more than one off course issue.

Pete

Things take time to change, it will not happen overnight, but we have no feedback, no actual representation nor is there any sign of actually communicating with the golfing world. Ivory Towers certainly spring to mind.

There is no acknowledgement on any serious issue, it’s ignored or dismissed and if we do not like it well it’s basically tough, we can’t do anything about it.

I believe the issues need to be accepted that there are indeed issues. We need to know what the current and future intention is. In fact how are they going to protect the game of golf.

A simple acknowledgement that things are being seriously looked at and that action or programs are in place to try to resolve them.

I am not against technology, far from it but I am not pro equipment that improves a player’s score. Improvement comes from skill not new equipment. In Old Toms day consistency did not appear in golf until the introduction of the gutty ball. That single thing allowed the game to mature, clubs that worked with a ball, that no longer suffered in the wet, be it from the morning dew, rain of damp conditions. We have had consistency in golf equipment for 112 years plus, so why are we still allowing balls and clubs to reduce a players score.

But of course change will take time, it just that we need to see some acknowledgement that they are looking at the problems rather than dismiss them as non-existent.

Melvyn

[Carl Johnson]

As a US resident, I have no idea about the accessibility and accountability of the R&A.  My sense is that the USGA is pretty much a closed shop.  However, I have no direct personal experience with the USGA's politics, so my impression may be inaccurate.

[Ed Brzezowski]

I will go along with Carl.
I really have no idea how well, or poorly it works.

I do some work with the USGA and find them a pleasure to deal with and open to hearing almost any idea. I have discussed rules, course rating and handicap questions with a number of people in Far Hills and find their professionalism beyond question. I do know a great guy on the Exec board, he takes my calls and responds to any email I send him.

If the R and A runs as well as the USGA that is a good thing.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Niall

An article from 1898, seems I am not the only one concerned



Melvyn

[Mark Chaplin]

Let's elect a body, pay the execs £100Ks per annumn, have a few dozen company cars, plush offices & charge a levy on every membership and public course round. Where will we end up? I expect with a bloated talking shop that achieves nothing but costs a fortune.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Mark is that the British Golf Union you are describing?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Mark

What I am saying is let’s look at all options. Let’s seen what is possible. Let’s talk and see just what can be achieved because it is not working in its present form and that is not good for golf in the long run. I do not want to swap one out of date body with another.

As I have said before and repeat again, I do not want to see the R&A being kicked out, I do want the R&A to be in charge but I mean In Charge with serious responsibility for their decisions and actions as well as commitment to the game and all its core values.

To Carry on Regardless is just echoing the Carry On film farce which no good for Golf, Golfer or for that matter the R&A.

Melvyn

[Sam Morrow]

As a US resident, I have no idea about the accessibility and accountability of the R&A.  My sense is that the USGA is pretty much a closed shop.  However, I have no direct personal experience with the USGA's politics, so my impression may be inaccurate.

I agree, I just wanted to make sure I posted since Melvyn was upset that he started the thread at 5:35am and had only one reply in 26 minutes then bitched about people not posting. I want to be part of the solution not the problem.

[Dan King]

Pete Lavallee writes:
Now, it's fair to say that the Ball Manufactuers have better funding for their scientists than the USGA and R&A, so they will always be able to outsmart any current or future regulations.

This is only because the USGA chooses not to fund research. In another thread there is mention of the USGA having a quarter of a billion dollars sitting around ready to defend lawsuits. If they took a small percentage of that money they could easily outsmart the ball manufacturers.

So do you advocate changing ball rules on a weekly, monthly or yearly basis?  You must acknowledge the real possibility of a lawsuit should the Ball Maker's right to flog their wares be infringed upon. Who will pay the legal bills to fight that fight?

Not only will they need to spend money to litigate, since more than likely they will lose, they will also have to pay damages.

There are reasonable ways to handle that. Similar to the R&A and the ball, you could have a different ball for competition. Eventually all the wanna-be pros would voluntarily switch to the less-hot ball.

Another idea, allow numerous different balls, maximized to different values. One player wants to use a ball that travels 400 yards and another uses one that travels 250 yards. Since I vote they stop using the silly terminals for handicaps, they could use them to determine each players handicap, depending on their handicaps, the slope and the hotness of the ball.

Cheers,
Dan King

It became slowly but painfully apparent that playing a different sized ball in the championship matches of each country would present a problem, if not an ultimatum. The R & A followed the usual practice of British diplomacy. They thought a sensible compromise was possible, in the shape of a ball somewhere in between. They manufactured two experimental balls, 1.65 and 1.66 inches in diameter respectively. They were offered to the Americans as a proud solution. The Americans, however, remembering Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase (which was unconstitutional, and sneaky, but worked), had a better idea. Why not compromise, they suggested, by using our ball. And so it was. The bigger American ball is now compulsory in all R & A championships and in British professional tournaments.
 --Alister Cooke

[Mark Chaplin]

The simple truth is the advances in technology assist the top 1% of the game. For the rest of us handicaps have hardly moved over the last 30 years.

I've stated here before cricket was run by the MCC a private members club. Now it is run "by the game" and is a political body run from the United Arabs Emirates because they offered better terms not because of their love of cricket, culture of the game (far from it) or ideal cricket conditions....hmmm it's dry! Did cricket stay on the BBC, of course not it went straight to Sky who offered millions. Needless to say I can see no evidence of that money coming down to the grassroots.

Melvyn you love a rant about the R&A/USGA but any changes will give more power to the areas of the game that drive income i.e. the professional game and the retail game and that includes the cart game, not the clubs and the individual. Look at cricket, the mirror is there to look into.

Tiger - there is no British union, each of the home unions charge a levy on club members.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Mark

Ahhh you do not agree hence the word ‘rant’. So best way to dismiss an opinion you do not agree with is to inflict a tone of frustration, perhaps a little anger with a touch of Men in Black or in this case Men in White coats.

No sorry, this topic is no desperate side line issue but a serious opportunity to get the full input on a very serious subject from the whole membership of GCA.com.

As like Cricket, sorry, you cannot be serious (to coin a phrase). Cricket still uses a ball and bat, stumps little changes over the last hundred years with perhaps allowance for consistency in the equipment (that’s ball and bat). More importantly the ground it’s played upon. Has in increases pro rata to that of a golf courses thanks to the introduction of technology in the equipment (you know increase in course length to combat the distance the new balls travel). No you mean the Oval, Lords etc. cricket pitches are still the same overall size.  So no it’s alas not like cricket. At least that Governing Body did right by the game first and foremost then allowing the commercial aspect to flourish.

If cricket can maintain its playing field in the face of modern engineering and the advent of technology why not Golf? MY belief is that is down to those in charge not understand what they had, what they were doing or for that matter really cared as no one was going to question them.

For all its problems Cricket is still closer to its 19th Century root than golf. Does that not upset you; dishearten you, because it does me.   

No rant Mark, just a concerned golfer with the wellbeing of the game close to his heart. Please note I do not make a living out of golf, benefit in any way from my comments or have any place of honour within the game, so perhaps I CAN see the woods for the trees.

Melvyn

[Mike_Clayton]

Melvyn,

I don't have any facts to back this up but my guess is that cricket inadvertently saved itself the day they - the administrators - refused to allow Dennis Lillee to use the aluminium bat. Left unchecked it would have been titanium by now and they would all be flipping it over the boundary at Lords - just as they are now flipping wedges onto par long fours and short fives.

[David_Elvins]

Mike,  Melvyn,

Cricket might be the wrong example.  The advances in cricket bat technology over the last 20 years are truly astounding and leaves the advances in golf for dead.  I play a couple of social games a year with new bats and not only is the sweet spot twice as big, but i would hit the ball 15-20 yards further on a decent whack than when I was playing cricket at a reasonable level in my younger years. 

The only reason cricket fields haven't changed size is because the crowds enjoy more sixes and shorter forms of the game. 

[Mark Chaplin]

David the comparison with cricket is a private members club administered the game, the money people turned it into a political organisation only concerned with money and power. Cricket is different to golf in the sums of money involved on equipment, with few disposables. That makes me think the golf manufacturers would bid for more power under an "elected" body.

[Niall C]

Melvyn,

Re the article you posted. Garden Smith was the Huggan of his day and the best he could come up with was to slag the R&A off for allowing privately run clubs to refer to their own competitions as "championships" ! Ever played in a "championship" ? I have and suspect almost everyone on this website has as well.

Mark hits the nail on the head with his last post. I shudder to think what state golf would be in if left to a commercial organisation to run. The Olympics spring to mind.

If you think they have done so badly can you firstly advise succinctly what they have done wrong, and also what they have failed to do.

Niall

[Melvyn Morrow]

Niall

 No if I have to do that then I see now that I am just waste my time. I did not expect much from this topic, but I did hope that it might get some thinking, but that's not the case. 

Clearly the R&A are doing a good job, (alas not in my eyes) but I feel its best to leave it there.  The future will resolve the porblems one way or another. I just hope it all proves me totally wrong.

Melvyn

[Pat Burke]

Deleted
Nevermind

[Niall C]

Melvyn

This is a discussion board, you raised the subject, and I've asked you for clarification and to expand on your views. That seems entirely reasonable to me. It is a free country/discussion board and your not obliged to respond but maybe your reluctance to engage ina reasonable discussion accounts for why you didn't get too many responses to your original post. Just a thought. And BTW, I'm not looking for you to respond on that last comment but would like very much to hear your views on what they have done wrong and what they have failed to do.

Niall

[Jason Topp]

I'm not familiar with the R&A as much as the USGA but I think both organizations are hamstrung to some extent by (1) a threat of litigation; (2) conflicts between ideas for the good of the game and perceived commercial interests. 

Effective equipment regulation would commodotize equipment, leading to competition on price rather than the latest innovation or gimmick.  Such an approach would be a disaster for equipment manufacturers and would be fought with every tool available - marketing, pr, legal challenges etc.  Such a fight would be enormously expensive and might not have much popular support outside of pockets of individuals such as this discussion group.  A threat would always exist that golfers and manufacturers would go rogue and ignore the governing bodies.

Such an approach, would, however, be great for the game.  It would reduce the cost of equipment, reducee the incentive to deface historical courses and reduce the cost of building new courses.  It would take strong leadership and thick skin to go this route. Even then, I would say the odds of success would be low.

I do however, think that the groove regulations have opened the door for bifurcation, which I have come to believe would be the best way to address equipment.  Shorten the distance the ball flies in competitions and the impact it would have on golfers would be minor compared to the impact the groove rule has now.  Balls are easier to replace than clubs.  Other changes could be required as the game evolves.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Niall

Totally reasonable,  yet I had hoped to get input of views from others. To learn of the feelings and opinions of others. Having been accused of posting repetitive points thought it better to see the opinions of others first. Not wanting to sow seeds of misguide to others on the R&A question, I have refrained from plastering the site with articles relating to the R&A over the years.

I still want the views of others so for the moment I will refrain from answering your question. I hope that too is seen as reasonable.

Melvyn