USGA - Distance Issue - Shinnecock & WF

[Mike_Sweeney]

USGA & The R&A - In reference to the distance issue, I am not a believer in any government or regulatory body as having any real ability to have predict the market and make preventative changes. It is just against their nature in reference to the distance issue

Economics - I am a believer in economics driving the market. Land here in the population centers such as New York City gets more scarce and harder to develop. Thus the 7500-8000 yard courses will be located in remote areas where few people will play them. Winged Foot Golf Club is at the absolute max for the 2006 US Open.  I think Shinnecock is maxed out too. There is no more room. The USGA has huge incentive to keep the US Open in New York, that is where the money is. The best thing that could happen would be to have 10-15 players go deep into the red and shoot significantly under par at Winged Foot and Shinnecock. Only Bethpage is left after them. Will you see the USGA react if this happens, or will they still continue to narrow the fairways and grow the rough ?

[Jeff_Mingay]

Mike,

It's not even the winner's total score, is it. Watching the best players in the world hit wedges into every green, no matter the distance of the hole, isn't very much fun for the golf fan.

[Mike_Sweeney]

Jeff,

I agree, but I specifically chose the US Open/USGA because they seem consumed with protecting par and filling the war chest with cash. If Shinny and WF can't protect par, will they move out of New York and give up the cash?

[Bob_Huntley]

Mike,

If the USGA decided to go the pot bunker route in the fairways at the 280 yard mark there would be no problem. Is this akin to painting a moustache on the Mona Lisa, yes, but it would negate the equipment advances that we see.

When I think of the 12th at TOC and the bunkering before the green AND if such bunkering was on a much longer hole, I do believe some strategy would be called for.

[A_Clay_Man]

Bob- Your pot bunker solution would change nothing. They would still be hitting Pitching wedges, sand wedges, gap wedges and nine irons for their second.

[TEPaul]

With the distance issue we can say what we want about what's happened relatively recently (in the last few years) but if we're speaking of the future and we want to discuss what the USGA/R&A plans to do, it's seems to be that they expect to hold things where they are now.

We talk about a rolback often on here but it seems the USGA/R&A has no plans for a rollback and have almost said so. What they have said publicly is that they plan to and expect to hold things at this level and they have also said they believe that distance is now pretty much at the edge of the envelope.

We can all hoot and holler over that likelihood but that appears to be what they've said. If they're somehow right about that the implication is basically that further lengthening of courses from here really shouldn't be particularly necessary.

Probably noone on this website really believes that but that appears to be what the USGA/R&A has said and at least appears to be implying.

Would that seem to be an accurate description of the USGA/R&A's future plans and expectations and what they've said recently about both? Let the hooting and hollering begin.

[Jim_Kennedy]

I agree with TEPaul's assessments. What's done is done and there isn't any likelyhood that will change. I also agree with Mike when he says that no one could have predicted the market and made serious changes to it.

Mike,
I don't doubt that there is a great deal of money made when the USGA holds an Open in NY but haven't they moved out many times in the past?
Since 1980 the Open has been to Ma, Minn, Ok, NC & Md once,  Ill, Mich & NJ twice, Pa three times, Ca six and NY seven(upstate incl.). The future sees Ca, Pa, NC and NY(2) on the roster.
As we all know, the lowest total ever was shot at PB but they will be going back to Ca..


     
 

[Joel_Stewart]

I think Shinnecock is maxed out too. There is no more room. The USGA has huge incentive to keep the US Open in New York, that is where the money is.

Mike:
I agree that the distance issue is of great concern, clubs such as Merion (I know some will disagree) have become obsolete to the modern game.  I don't agree that Shinnecock is maxed out, I can think of a number of holes that they could add length although it would be insane.  I honestly believe that Shinnecock will be another Bethpage, a complete monster to the pros.

As for the money, all Opens sell out, both in terms of attendence and corporate tents.  It doesn't matter if its Iowa or New York or California.  The question is, how much does the USGA want to make?  The human nature greedy aspect wants a facility that has even more than 2 courses, maybe 3 or 4 so that a village could be constructed and parking and corporate tents for the huge cash flow.  Bethpage, Pinehurst fill this need.  

[TEPaul]

There was a ton of elasticity designed into Shinnecock on many holes but not all, although I'm not completely sure the club or anyone else was all that aware it was very likely designed into the course originally. They've been using it up little by little over the years and most of the holes are maxed now but not all of them. By saying that, though, I'm sure not certain that additional length on the remaining holes that still have some elasticity would make all that much sense because of the mid-body designs of those holes but who really knows without looking carefully at them. It sure does look to Wayne and I that Shinnecock was originally designed for distance increases in the future and we've been up there a couple ot times and discussed this with the club.

We all know what William Flynn felt about distance increases and it appears he must have felt that despite his very clear written warnings in the USGA Green Section bulletin iteslf that golf's regulatory bodies either might not or might not be able to do that much about it. It does appear that with a course like Shinnecock (did the club actually ask for an out and out championship design in the late 1920s?) he meant to protect the course for the future by designing a good deal of elasticity into it originally!

[Bob_Huntley]

Adam,

It all depends where the pot bunkers are placed.

[Mike_Sweeney]

After I posted this, I got this week's Golfweek, and there are a number of articles on the USGA and the internal politics of same. It is very interesting.

[Alfie]

Here we go again, and rightly so. If we can all agree that the distance factor is playing havoc with the game, and that the supreme bodies in golf also recognise the distance issue is a reality - then why isn't someone doing something about it ?
I can't praise this website highly enough to do it credit, but it's a certainty that within two or three more replies you'll have digressed to wondering what color (US) Annika's knickers are ? (and they're Pink - OK)
I've already forced my own viewpoints upon many of you with what may be misconstrued as a Junk e-mail ? The solution to the problem, I believe, is in the "roll back" of the ball ! Nothing could be simpler, and Mr Peter Dawson as much as confirmed that on UK SKY TV recently. (well done Peter ! even though it was probably unintended ?)
TEP's comments summed up the situation perfectly, but concedes like most others do on this thorny subject. WHY ?
Are the USGA / R & A beyond approach on ANY golfing matter ? I sincerely hope not - we've had too many dictatorships to contend with already.
Unfortunately for golf, these two bodies have settled themselves down to dictating to golfers the way things are going to be - and worst of all, golfers have always accepted their judgements. You should all ask the questions ; have they done a good job as custodians of YOUR game ? or is it time for the average golfer to make their voices heard ?
I've learned a great deal from various comments made here at GCA and the knowledge base on golfing matters has to be complimented. Meanwhile, golf is going down the plughole and I don't think it takes a visionary to see that ?
You guys love your Baseball too - let's show them the way to solve their problem while we're at it ?

Or are Annika's knickers more important ?

Alfie Ward. singing the same old tune

[Mike_Sweeney]

The future sees Ca, Pa, NC and NY(2) on the roster.
As we all know, the lowest total ever was shot at PB but they will be going back to Ca..

Jim & Joel,

Actually it is 3 of the next 6 Opens are in New York.

2004 - Shinny
2005 - Pinehurst - Clubcorp is a powerful force in golf for corporate $

2006 - WF
2007 - Oakmont - Pittsburgh is underated as a corporate market, but more importantly it is Oakmont
2008 - Torrey Pines - #2 Southern California market
2009 - Bethpage

I know where The Open has been, but I think Bethpage changed everything in terms of economics.

. Corporate Tents at New York prices,
. 40,000+ fans a day,
. TV contract where every person in the NY market has the ability to play the course
. Tiger Woods won

They certainly got Bethpage back on the schedule in a hurry.

Thus, where Alfie worries about the future of the game, I tend to agree with Tom Paul that they will keep here at this level (distance) to protect the assets listed above. I wish they would pull it back for the pros, but I am realistic.

Seriously, would the US Open have the same appeal if they played it at a "Matt Ward Special" in a remote location?

[TEPaul]

"If we can all agree that the distance factor is playing havoc with the game, and that the supreme bodies in golf also recognise the distance issue is a reality - then why isn't someone doing something about it?"

Alfie:

I think I can give you an answer to that. When you say 'if we can all agree that the distance factor is playing havoc with the game...' who do you mean by "we"? Do you mean those who contribute to Golfclubatlas? Do you mean those who have previously made their feelings known on the distance issue such as Nicklaus, Player, Irwin etc as tour players? Do you mean Hannigan and some of the past Presidents of the USGA who've expressed their feelings? Do you mean Geoff Shackelford and other writers? Or do you perhaps mean a number of millions of golfers out there who play golf?

I've said numerous times on here that the USGA/R&A are two non-profit amateur organizations who happen to control and monitor I&B rules and regulations in golf around the world but who depend upon the support of millions of golfers around the world through what's called voluntary compliance to do that.

You say these two bodies 'have settled themselves down to dictating to golfers how things are going to be'. I would slightly disagree with that. They probably haven't done enough dictating to satisfy some on here and others who are very concerned about a distance problem! If the USGA/R&A were to effect a "rollback" now or soon, something that has actually never before happened in the regulatory annals of golf, then they'd be really dictating something, don't you think?

Do you actually think the boards of the USGA/R&A and those that work within those organizations want to see the distance the ball travels continue to increase? Do you think those same people are satisfied with what's happened with distance in the last 10 years? I don't.

If that's true then why haven't they done something about it? That's the question isn't it? The answer probably lies in looking at who it is that doesn't want to see that happen. Certainly the manufacturers. Do the professional tours want to see that happen? Are there perhaps millions of golfers out there who want to see it happen? I don't think so.

This kind of debate on controlling distance has been going on continuously since the onset of the Haskel ball in the beginning of the last century and its been continuing throughout every decade since then and nothing has really been done about it---certainly never a rollback in distance. Why is that? Obviously because the majority of golfers and others involved in the sport either don't understand, don't care or just don't want it.

Personally, I'd love to see a rollback and I even think if the regulatory bodies could get general support for that it could even be done in such a way as to keep a single unified set of I&B rules and regs intact for all. That could basically be done by dialing back on COR, deeming this new composite ball nonconforming which has combined distance and feel characteristic in the last ten years and basically deeming this "optimization" phenomenon we've seen recently non-conforming as well. If the regulatory bodies did that they could simply calculate the distance acheived at approximately 125mph to something like 285-290 yards and limit it at that and deem anything over that in the future nonconforming.

Again, I'd certainly support something like that but who else would? Those on here would and those that I mentioned above would but would millions of other golfers around the world? That's the question. If the answer is yes it probably will happen. If the answer is no it probably never will just as it never has in these last 100 or so years.

I'm not conceding anything as you said. I'm just trying to look at some realities here. Again, these two regulatory bodies depend on the support and voluntary compliance of golfers, millions of them. If they think they have that support for a rollback I dare say they'd act on this today maybe even yesterday.

But if they don't think they have that support they'll probably continue to do what we can see they've always done. Again, I dare say that if anyone could organize and deliver that support to them they would act instantly.

Do you think you can deliver that support to them? Do you think Golfcubatlas, or some of the tour pros mentioned or some of the past presidents of the USGA or some of the writers mentioned here can deliver that support to them?

If you think so then let's try to organize and deliver that support to them. At the very least let's try to organize enough to convince them to go public themselves in an attempt to drum up that support for this themselves before they act!

The reality is I don't believe it's exactly the USGA/R&A that anyone has to convince here. It's much more likely those millions of golfers out there who still don't seem to understand, don't seem to care or who don't seem to want to see this happen. It's more likely those people who may not wish to be dictated to in the way of a rollback. But if they do the tours, the manufacturers and very likely everyone else will go along with them and it will happen!

I'm certainly not saying the USGA/R&A is acting in a forthright way on this issue. The fact is they never really have because they've never really had the support they've needed on this issue. But if they can find that support now in the manner of voluntary compliance, there's no doubt in my mind the distance issue can and will be solved!

[A_Clay_Man]

I am not a believer in any government or regulatory body as having any real ability to have predict the market and make preventative changes. It is just against their nature in reference to the distance issue

Mike- If this were true would there be something known as C.O.R. or .830 (whatever that is?)

Didn't they predict, when they placed those restrictions?

Plus, what happens if they do rollback, and then Nature and Man, find a way to pelt the ol' piloto even farther?


Bob- As I extrapolate, it will not matter where those bunkers are placed because the second shot will still be a wedge. i.e. 390 yd par 4. Randomly Place a series of pot bunkers starting at the 120 yard mark and in. If I decide to challenge the obvious strategy of laying back, by taking my chances on a pot bunker, placed 90 yards from the target, the wedge is still gonna be my club, and if it's a deep enough bunker it will be sand wedge.

[Alfie]

TEP,

What a reply, and I really do hope every GCA member (and another few thousand guests) read it !

By "we" - I am, of course, talking in a general sense although all the parties you mention, from what I've observed, seem to be in general agreement that golf is going AWOL !
 The point is, and has always been so in democracy, that if you want something changed where there is a mass of people involved - you have to win over the majority. (The majority no longer having a true value - only 50 - 60% actually bother to vote in the UK) A big lobby often does the job ?

I see, in the GCA set up, and with the assistance of this "wonderful" technology, the perfect nucleus to gather the support that I believe the USGA and the R & A may actually be hoping / waiting for !

I'm not going to get above my station by jumping on my big white horse and call the tunes. I'm a newcomer here. But a serious "lobby" has to start somewhere in order to grow the required awareness of -, yes,- millions of golfers worldwide. Technology can be used as the tool to temper the negative effects it is thrusting upon this game called golf !

Unfortunately, IT technology is not entirely dependable. I have sent out my message to around 2000 golfing contacts. Most of these will have been deleted at source. And I am still awaiting some sort of acknowledgement from some of the people you forementioned ? Hannigan nor any of the golf writers over here wouldn't even talk to me ?
My best reponses are coming from people like myself, viz ; nobodies in golf !

But I won't quit, just yet ! This whole issue is not about me, nor you, nor the governing bodies - it's about golf and it's future. Inaction will not mean Armageddon for the game - but it sure as hell aint going to make things better !

Let's not forget that the USGA / R & A may well be non-profit making bodies, but they are administering substantial funds, our funds, and getting paid well for the privilege ! When was the last time you had a vote on proceedings ?

The USGA / R & A know they have been caught out by allowing technology to advance in the way it has affected "a game !" Forgiveness is so much easier when a solution can be installed to negate the problem they have nurtured on our behalf !

THE ROLL BACK IS THE SOLUTION !

I have to compliment every word of your reply TEP, and I hope that doesn't sound patronizing ? I do think the bodies need our support (even though I've slagged them off at times) and I am positive in my own mind that it is both practical and possible to achieve the required support if the will is there ?

Again I must stress, that it is not my place to turn this erudite golf discussion forum into what might be seen as a bunch of antagonists ?

But GCA, in my opinion, has the potential power to re-write the golfing history book - for it's protection, it's preservation, and most essentially, it's future ?

As a footnote ; I've came across a few situations where a proposed action met the proverbial brick wall, because it had never been done before !
1) that's a very lame excuse for not doing something ; and
2) with a roll back rule, we alrerady know where we are going.

Alfie Ward. Scotland.

[TEPaul]

Alfie:

I see no reason at all not to try to use Golfclubatlas.com or any other possible vehicle to generate support around the world for a rollback of the golf ball and a show of support for the distance problem of golf and for the USGA/R&A to do something about it. I guess any of us might have to check with Ran Morrissett about that first though.

Of course the other scenario that I didn't exactly mention which no doubt many on here want to see is simply for the USGA/R&A to agree right now to effect a rollback on distance by generating a new set of I&B rules and regulations on golf clubs and golf balls.

If they did that they probably would run the risk of a certain amount of dissent and resistance on the part of the manufacturers, perhaps some tour entities and perhaps a good number of golfers around the world.

What would happen then would of course be interesting. They may carry the day and continue to hold the support of all those mentioned or the world of I&B rules and regulations may begin to factionlize into others offering their own I&B rules and regs. The PGA TOUR may do that and others may as well. Then we would certainly have nothing remotely akin to I&B unity in golf. The manufacturers may simply forego the USGA/R&A I&B rules and regs and manufacture whatever they want and if golfers out there bought it that would effectively be the beginning of the end of the I&B control by the USGA/R&A.

Some say the USGA/R&A owes golf that stance anyway as an indication of their responsibility to protect the game. Perhaps they're right. If the two amateur regulatory bodies did that and important entities of golf did not follow them as they have in the past at least they and some of us could say they went down with principle with both barrels firing! T

That would be somethng, for sure, but where are we all and the game as well then when the USGA/R&A are cast into semi-irrelevency or just gone from this area of I&B rules and regs?

[Alfie]

Mike (Sweeney),

The nearest I've ever been to Baseball was when I played "rounders" as a kid. Maybe your bosses in Baseball will be the ones to lead many of our ball sports (inc golf) in taking the simple step of standardisation "of a ball" ?

I can only guess that it would be a very simplistic "roll back" for Baseball ? I can understand that the golfing issue is a bit more complex mainly due to my belief that the golf ball manufacturers (if given new (old) standards to follow) would still be kept busy in the production of variable golf balls - but within the guidelines set by the R & A / USGA !

After all, what were they doing during the 1950's / 60's / 70's / 80's to the present day ? The manufacturers were following the "given" parameters which constituted a legal competition golf ball under the rules. The USGA / R & A for various reasons let this critical controlling factor out of their grasp ! All would not be lost if they had the courage to impose the roll back theory.

Making, or having the ability to make comparisons through different era's is another intricate area ? Believe it or not, I could "prove" that it was possible to make very accurate comparison's between old and new in golf. The comparison being for any individual to try a game with hickory and gutta on an authentic period golf course ! But that's history now although there are a few golfers going about whom I believe, have a far greater understanding of - what the essence of golf really is (perhaps) ?

I think your comment re - Hootie Johnson is absolutely spot on !
If he had the balls to control his own balls, the present balls up could be repaired and he would in effect - be setting the ball in motion for the betterment of all other ball users !

Maybe we should all give Hootie our support ?

Alfie Ward. Scotland.

[Alfie]

TEP,

Paragraph 1 ; absolutely !

para 2 & 3 ; let them keep / continue their club technology. How much bigger can a "sweet spot" get ? Imposing new regulations on club technology might just be the spark to ignite further mayhem ! There exists a mysterious hysteria being spouted from the professional ranks surrounding the possibility of rolling the ball back. Let's not complicate matters - the ball would be a major advancement (by taking it back)

para 4 ; the PGA are, to some extent, playing under their own rules right now and so long as new regs covered only the ball, then I think they would be sensible and honourable enough to accept the new regs without dissent.
As Mike implied earlier ;

quote "I still say that the one man who can cut through all the BS is Hootie Johnson. Throw out a "Tournament Ball" at the first tee at Augusta, and they will all still show up. "

If big Ernie or any other refuses to play with an old Dunlop 65 (or whatever) then I'll eat my Tam O' Shanter !
Anyway, I think we're already at the beginning of the end TEP !

para 5 ; Now this is where all these other parties being discussed just better watch their bloody steps. They have bullied for too long and have been instrumental in creating most of the damage. Would  anybody involved with golf, this forum, amateur and professional alike, sit back and view the dissemination of our ruling bodies without putting up some form of defence ? I won't be keen "to allow" that to happen and I believe that if it did come about - they (the manufacturers) would be awakening a sleeping giant !

I'm off for a cuppa - God bless GCA and give it inspiration !

Alfie Ward.

[Doug Siebert]

TEP,

I find a lot to agree with in what you are saying, but I have a few comments...  I don't believe that the manufacturers are against a rollback.  They are, like any industry enjoying the nicely profitable benefits of low price elasticity, afraid of change to the status quo.  But they are afraid of the unknown of "change" because change could take the form of something they are definitely against, like a standardized ball for all of golf, or a tournament ball (whether standardized or built to different specs) for the pros.

If all the existing rules were left in place but the numbers that set the limits changed so that drives started going 10% shorter tomorrow on the tour, I don't think they'd care.  A ball that's 10 yards longer under the current standard is 9 yards longer when they both have 10% cut off.  And they rely more on advertising than anything else for "longest ball" claim.  Until I hit the Pro V1x the first few times I'd never actually played a ball I could definitely see a distance increase with in my life, other than the time I was given one of those "illegal" hot balls back in the 80s and drove pin high on a 386 yard hole on my home course...a feat I have never reproduced even with a Ti driver and Pro V1x!

I'd even argue that the fans wouldn't care too much.  They might grumble a bit, but more in their role as golfers than fans.  After all, many golf fans who oooh and aaah over drives that carry 300 yards oooh and aaah over "monster" home runs of 450 feet.  I could take a short iron and hit a golf ball off home plate not only for a home run but completely out of any stadium in the major leagues.  Well, except for the ones that have a roof!  It is all relative to what others do, not based on absolute distance.  The longer driver on tour would still get just as many "you da man!"s hitting a Cayman ball 175 yards, if everyone else is hitting it 155 or 160.

Part of the problem arguing this is that most of us here are very long hitters relative to the average golfer, so there's a tendency for guys like my dad, who has hit a bomb if he manages 200 yards, to think he'd be the one hurt if the ball was shortened.  The point to stress is that a 10% cut (or whatever is done) would cut the difference between two golfers by 10%.  Long hitters are still long, just not as much longer than others as before.  And make the argument that not needing quite so much land for a course means more courses get built which drives down prices both from lowered construction costs and increased supply.  My dad's an economist, that probably should be my main argument, since saying that my 120 yard advantage over him will drop to 108 yards isn't going to impress him much.  

[TEPaul]

Doug:

I'm not very technical but it's my understanding that the new age ball combined with the recent wrinkle of "optimization" (higher launch angle + reduced spin rate) basically spikes the distance increase for those who swing over 109mph not below. If that's true and the new wrinkle of "optimization" was removed I'd think in effect the faster swinger's distance would be reduced but not the slower swinger who apparently can't really take advantage of this new "optimization" distance spike now. So at least theoretically it may not be a matter of rolling back both the fast swinger and the slower swinger by 10%. Theoretically it may be possible to roll back the fast swinger by 10% and the slower swinger (109 or below) by almost nothing. I know this may seem unfair to some but it doesn't mean the swinger over 109 wouldn't hit it farther than the swinger at 109 only that the gap in distance between the two won't be as great as it is now. With "optimization" apparently there's an exponential distance effect over 109 now. Cut out "optimization" and apparently in theory you take away that exponential distance increase over 109mph.

[Tom_Doak]

Alfie:

Did you play the 1.62 inch ball when you were younger?

When did you give it up?  Right after they ruled it out for the Open and Amateur?  Or years afterward?  How much resistance was there in those first few years [other than the natural resistance to giving in to the American standard]?

The only way to roll back the ball is to start with the good players first, and let them impose their will on everyone else over time.  This was done in 1979; it could probably be done again, if anyone had the guts to try.

[Tom_Doak]

P.S.  Sad to say, if they want to go get it, there is plenty of room to lengthen Shinnecock.  Not every hole, but several of them.  The club wouldn't have let them do it all in one swoop this year, but if there's another Open in 2014, there will probably be five or six more new tees.

A funny story:  they added about 125 yards to the golf course this year, but on the official card, it's only 70 or 80.  The reason:  the USGA was exaggerating the length of some of the holes in 1995.

[Brian_Gracely]

A funny story:  they added about 125 yards to the golf course this year, but on the official card, it's only 70 or 80.  The reason:  the USGA was exaggerating the length of some of the holes in 1995.

Tom,

That's not a funny story.  It's sad that the USGA felt the need to exaggerate the stated length of the course.  Especially considering that they had to move the tee up on both 9 and 18 at least once, because of weather, and the winning score was right near par.  All that does is plant the seed in the heads of TV viewers, be they players or course owners or club-makers, that length was needed to bring the course to championship conditions.  

[TEPaul]

TomD:

I agree with you that the standardization into the 1.68 ball is  a pretty good implimentation model to follow if the regulatory bodies were to go for a distance rollback with the golf ball. However, we should all be aware that the purpose would be quite different from the standardization to the 1.68 ball. That move in the 1970s was basically for the purpose of ball size standardization nothing much more. This time the purpose would definitely be only for a distance rollback.

I used to play that 1.62 ball sometimes (when it was legal) and it's probably true what most felt that it did go farther than the 1.68 ball into the wind but you pretty much gave up that increase downwind to the 1.68 ball so it was sort of a wash distance-wise all thing considered.

And we should also remember that along about that time the Rules of Golf also instituted the "one ball rule" (local rule) to be implimented through the "conditons of competition" sheet. Today almost all class A tournaments impliment the "one ball rule". The reason that happened obviously was to in effect minimize the vastly different ball performance characteristics that have always been on the market and still are and probably always will be.

It's no secret that when the small ball was around some clever players used to use the small ball into the wind and the bigger ball downwind.