News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


rgkeller

Re:Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #25 on: February 13, 2004, 10:11:53 AM »
I would have preferred that Thomas had not dropped the ball during his reign as Technical Director and was not now taking money from and shilling for those he formerly regulated.

I guess those TV advertisements on the telecasts of USGA events are free.

Mashie1

Re:Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #26 on: February 13, 2004, 10:27:22 AM »
In rolling back the ball, the USGA would be perceived in having taken something away from players.  This would go over like a lead balloon.  It's never going to happen.

You might want to check this out.

http://www.usga.org/press/2003/2003_63.html

Alfie

Re:Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #27 on: February 13, 2004, 10:30:07 AM »
Bob Crosbie said ;
"Whatever the level of scrutiny the USGA has given to the issue, at a minimum they owe their national membership a full and accurate briefing of their technological findings to date and their reasoning as to why they have elected to make no changes."

Couldn't agree more and the R & A are just as guilty ! The rest of Bob's questions should be glued to the bar counter of every grass roots golf club on the planet ! (in my opinion, of course)

JohnV ; "You say that people who try to ridicule others usually do so in fear of protecting their own interests.  The only ridiculing I see around here is of the USGA and R&A.  Perhaps the people doing it have their own best interests at heart also.  But, since they are fighting the good fight, that is ok."

John ; I personally believe in giving credit where credit is due ! I won't bow to any body or organisation as a matter of courtesy or respect if I know that body or organisation has gone off the tracks and is non representative, in this case, for the well being of golf ! Constructive debate is more condusive to solving problems than secrecy !
Just for the record ; I have no financial interest in golf and don't foresee any financial 'pay back' for my own personal contributions made to the game in over 40 years of service. Neither do I believe in just standing by and accepting what our Lords put before us. Pulling wool over eyes - is not for me !

Tim ; "Well, thank God Geoff doesn't! We need far more people to speak out about how silly the golf technology arms race is."

How right you are, and majority consensus of opinions should only arise through democratic debate. But just how democratic is this debate at present ?

Thank God for Geoff - and GCA ! I wish there was such a forum on this side of the pond which offered free, open, and HONEST debate !

Alfie Ward. Scotland.

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #28 on: February 13, 2004, 10:32:10 AM »
I fully agree with JohnV when he says:

"My problem comes about when people start making assumptions about peoples motives and knowledge in the absence of any true information."

Not that I am ever guilty of doing that (   ;) ), but it seems that this is a far easier position to take when one's beliefs, friends, or people whom we respect are being attacked, than when the person is on the offense.  BTW, it is probably human nature protected by a strong defense mechanism to first believe that those who disagree with us are mal-informed, dull, or just not very good people.  It is amazing just how smart our friends are, and how our opponents just lack "gravitas" at best, and/or are plain rotten at worse.

I suspect that the USGA is struggling with the B & I issue because there is nowhere close to a concensus among golfers (of which the large majority probably do not see the distance issue as a problem), and any position that it could take would be suboptimal.  Having said this, they are paid the big bucks (prestige, self-esteem, fullfilment, incomparable golfing experiences) to lead, and lead they should.  They can use the precedence of that practice in other sports, and require a special tournament ball for their competitions, allowing the rest of us to play under the existing rules.

And if you don't agree with me, I really don't think you are either stupid or the progeny of Hitler.  Perhaps you just don't take this silly, all too-consuming game as seriously as I do.    

TEPaul

Re:Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #29 on: February 13, 2004, 10:42:36 AM »
"Shortly after Max Behr wrote that, the USGA did make a knee jerk reaction in introducing the "floater" ball.  "In 1929 USGA adopted a 1.68", 1.55oz ball for the years 1930-31, but the universal condemnation of this balloon made them quickly rethink, and from January 1932 settled on the 1.68", 1.62oz specifications." - Leith Society History of the Rules website.  I wonder if his and other's comments caused this debacle.  Perhaps that is why they are slow to change today?"

JohnV;

That quote of yours is most interesting! I did not know that. I realize the "floater" ball was an enormous and contentious issue back in those days and that support for it was fairly impressive--eg, Behr, Macdonald, perhaps Thomas and Hunter and a good number of significant Europeans extremely knowledgeable and powerful in the world of golf and golf organization!

Again, I never knew the "floater ball" (a lighter ball) was ever produced. And you say it was considered a complete flop, huh? I'd really like to scratch around for some research into exactly why it was considered a complete flop, if that was actually true. I wonder if the reason was the USGA speced it and the manufacturers basically refused to produce it or if the manufacturers produced it and the golfing public simply did not like it and basically refused to buy it and use it. Knowing which it may have been seems to me to be extremely significant!

In any case, the whole concept of the "floater ball" is very interesting to me, at least it's interesting to me to understand what those men back then who were so vocal in proposing it were driving at! At first it appears they thought it benefical simply because not so many golfers would lose golf balls in water and therefore wouldn't have to spend as much money on balls.

But on a closer analysis of Max Behr's arguments in favor of something like the "floater ball" it appears his reasoning for the benefit of a "floater" ball, or lighter ball was wholly different. It appears it was simply an efficient weight limitation that could be easily tested in the real world (and of course the fact you didn't lose it in water was a benefit too). But why was he or they interested in a weight limitation? Apparently to Behr it had almost everything to do with trying to maintain that certain precise skill limitation in relation to nature itself.

Obviously, the thinking was the lighter ball (no weightier than what would float) was not easy, probably impossible, to hit great distances even in calm conditions but Behr's great concern, one he talked about constantly in his essays, was that somehow nature should never lose it's part in golf and golf architecture--it had to be maintained at all costs to preserve that delicate balance of the skill level of a golfer with his ball and impliments competing against nature (one of his analogies was the sportsman should shoot birds with nothing heavier than a 28 gauge shotgun (very light) instead of a cannon!).

So what was nature to Behr that should not lose it's part in golf so as to preserve that delicate balance of a golfer's skill level while competing against nature? It was definitely the earth and maintaining the natural look of it (for very interesting and separate reasons) but it was also the wind and maintaining it's influence and effect on golf through its influence on the ball. Obviously, they all figured the wind would work its crafty influence far better and far more on the flight of a ball of 1.68" and ONLY 1.55oz rather than a ball of 1.62 and 1.62oz or even 1.68" and 1.620z!

This is all very interesting and perhaps very apropos of what might or might not work today with the golfing public if the regulatory bodies ever do consider a rollback.

So the important question remains---why did it flop?? Was it because the manufacturers basically refused to make it for their own reasons (less profit?) or was it because they did make it but the golfing public didn't like it and refused to buy it and use it?

If it was the latter the further question and even more important one is why didn't they like it? If it turns out to be that it didn't go far enough to suit them then perhaps a lot of people today might need to reconsider not only some of the things they're saying about the USGA but also some of the things they are saying about how well and how effectively a rollback in distance would work if and when the regulatory bodies did legislate it!

This is all very interesting! Let's at least try to find out exactly why that "floater ball", the lighter ball, did flop, if in fact it did! If it was because it didn't go far enough to suit the golfing public then what are we suppose to conclude?


TEPaul

Re:Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #30 on: February 13, 2004, 10:59:23 AM »
Lou Duran just said;

"I fully agree with JohnV when he says:
"My problem comes about when people start making assumptions about peoples motives and knowledge in the absence of any true information."

Lou and JohnV:

I completely agree with you on that. And so let me just come out and be blunt about that on this thread. What rgkeller said in that vein today shows him to be a petty ass, in my opinion, and probably in the opinions of both of you and a number of others. And because he has been a petty ass today in what he said on a couple of his posts he should at least start acting like less of a petty ass and get in here and delete those posts he made castigating the motives of the executive committee members of the USGA as well as those who are employed by the USGA even including Frank Thomas. Thomas, by the way, I had about an hour conversation with yesterday and rgkeller has no clear idea what he's talking about regarding him! No idea!

Tim Weiman who obviously feels very strongly about this distance issue and the part the USGA has played in it and should play in it didn't personally castigate anyone at the USGA for it as rgkeller did! The both of them may feel the same way about this distance issue, many of us might, but keller should learn something from the way Tim Weiman goes about stating his case with no personal animosity whatsoever!


Patrick_Mucci

Re:Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #31 on: February 13, 2004, 11:00:19 AM »
rgkeller,
All sorts of middle aged amateurs hit the ball distances that would not be believed ten years ago.

You can add Senior golfers as well.  
When old guys are hitting the ball a lot farther then young guys did 20 and 30 years ago, you know that the distance increases aren't confined to the Professional ranks, and that they''re substantial.


A Clayman,

What makes you think that I know the answer ?

I'd like to know why they are opposed to the concept, in principle.

It seems as if the ex-presidents were in favor of a rollback, and now it seems as if they have been taken out of the power loop.   Why ?  And, why the opposition to a rollback ?
The USGA's hiding behind the myth that only a very very small percentage of professionals gain from the new technology would be misinformation too outrageous for even the USGA to undertake.

JohnV

Re:Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #32 on: February 13, 2004, 11:03:23 AM »
I guess those TV advertisements on the telecasts of USGA events are free.

NBC sells those, not the USGA.  Sure, NBC pays the USGA, but they would pay the USGA the same regardless of who is advertising.

JohnV

Re:Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #33 on: February 13, 2004, 11:06:46 AM »
Tom, I just got that quote from the Leith Society history of the rules so I'm not sure why the "floater" was disliked, but I'll try to do some research on it tonight.

Mike Benham

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #34 on: February 13, 2004, 11:16:30 AM »
A Clayman,

What makes you think that I know the answer ?

I'd like to know why they are opposed to the concept, in principle.

Pat-

Why don't you call or write the USGA and ask them?  

I may be going out on a limb by saying this but I'm pretty sure that, if they answered your question, this would be the only way for you to know for sure why they are opposed to a rollback.

I would volunteer to call them, forward their reply to you, but then you might accuse me of mistating the facts and assumptions  ;)  ;)  ;)

Mike

"... and I liked the guy ..."

Mashie1

Re:Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #35 on: February 13, 2004, 11:20:33 AM »
This statement from the above linked press release says it all, IMHO:

"This latest proposal reflects years of work and dialogue with the manufacturers regarding needed updates to our test procedures," Rugge added. "Through this new test, we’ll be able to establish a precise and relevant performance limit regarding golf ball distance. Thus, any additional distance gains will not be due to design or construction changes in the ball itself. We think this new test provides the right framework for us to utilize state-of-the-art technology to test golf balls in a manner that is relevant to today’s game and not the one of a generation ago."

The ball is not going to be rolled back.

Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #36 on: February 13, 2004, 11:22:08 AM »
Tom Paul:

Thanks. I don’t have the slightest idea of the motivations of people who serve on the USGA board. It’s not personal. I simply think that collectively they are failing big time when it comes to the technology issue. But, they aren’t alone. Augusta National should have already addressed this issue. Moreover, Golf Digest architecture editor Ron Whitten should have known better than to float the crazy idea of Tom Fazio moving the entire #13 green complex at Augusta 50-60 yards.

Mostly what is needed is for people to start thinking seriously about how silly the golf technology arms race is. We are discussing the issue here, but generally people have given the issue very little thought. Advertising has so distorted people’s thinking on the question of distance that many people really don’t even understand the difference between relative and absolute distance. So, naturally they haven’t thought about how pointless an emphasis on absolute distance really is.

Clearly, the manufacturers have had a corrupting influence. Education is needed to combat the way they have poisoned the golf world. Nobody I know wants to spend the equivalent of twenty $500 drivers just to renovate a golf course for a small minority when they can’t even now play the back tees, but our thinking is so out of whack that club members are actually being asked to do so.

We need to emphasize that the golf technology arms race makes no sense for golf consumers. We need to highlight the fact that technology that encourages or requires costly course modifications is not “progress” – it is a step backwards.

It’s Wizard of Oz time. The big bad wizard – the manufacturers – need to be exposed.


Tim Weiman

TEPaul

Re:Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #37 on: February 13, 2004, 11:25:49 AM »
"Tom, I just got that quote from the Leith Society history of the rules so I'm not sure why the "floater" was disliked, but I'll try to do some research on it tonight."

JohnV;

Thank you very much, that would be wonderful and wonderful to know. Do you see the significance of it if it really does turn out to be because the golfing public didn't like it and refused to buy it and use it because it didn't go far enough for them or some other ramification closely akin to that? I sure hope you do, and I hope others do as well.

I'm definitely not saying I don't think there's a problem with distance today and I'm not saying I don't think it's negatively effecting golf and architecture but I'm even more interested in figuring out what the great golfing public thinks and what they're prepared to do about it certainly if the USGA/R&A does legislate a distance roll-back across the board.

This kind of thing is necessary to know. If it turns out that they do legislate that and only 50,000 or 100,000 are interested in buying and using it instead of the USGA's perhaps 9,000,000 present golfing consituency it's important to know.

I've said a bunch of times that at the end of the day the USGA is basically us---the American golfer--all of us. The USGA knows that as they should--and obviously the same goes for the R&A. If they do something that only represents 1/100th of that consituency then I wouldn't be for it. Maybe that's some unfortunate price to be paid in a democratic society!

A_Clay_Man

Re:Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #38 on: February 13, 2004, 11:27:10 AM »
Pat, IF I understand your response to me, why is it then that handcps have remained constant?

Distance is but one small facet in this sport. To deem it all a failure because of one facet, lessens the importance of the others.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #39 on: February 13, 2004, 11:29:32 AM »
Mike Benham,
I would volunteer to call them, forward their reply to you, but then you might accuse me of mistating the facts and assumptions  ;)  ;)  ;)

I think that's a great idea.
So that I don't question the validity of the relayed reply, why don't you write to them, and just forward me a copy of their written response, on USGA letterhead.


Alfie

Re:Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #40 on: February 13, 2004, 11:38:44 AM »
TEP,

I'm anticipating that Geoff is about to discover exactly what Mr Behr was deliberating over, in 1920 - 27 ?

Like you, I was very interested in JohnV's comments re - the floater ball which was reportedly introduced to the game ?  Can't comment - didn't know about it. More info please, JohnV.

One of the fascinating aspects of Behr's writings, and we should not lose grasp of the fact, is that he was making his own assessments of a game in his era - circa 1920's.

We're now some 80 years advanced and do possess the hindsight that Behr didn't have himself. If the floater of that age did not work, that in itself is no reason to believe that it could not work in 2004 !

How many can remember playing with the old 65's or equivalent ? How bad were they to play with ? I didn't have a problem with them and I reckon I wouldn't have a problem with them today if they became legal tender again ! For everybody !

I'd like to know the answers to some of your questions as to why the floater flopped ? I suspect it was for the same reasons that our governing bodies choose to disregard the roll back option today ?
Brilliant summary of Behr - by the way.

Mashie ;"In rolling back the ball, the USGA would be perceived in having taken something away from players.  This would go over like a lead balloon.  It's never going to happen"

It's never going to happen, so long as we golfers keep saying that it's never going to happen !
They'll never put a man on the moon - now that's rediculous to even suggest that it is possible ?

Alfie Ward. Scotland.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #41 on: February 13, 2004, 11:41:00 AM »
A Clayman,
Pat, IF I understand your response to me, why is it then that handcps have remained constant?

Because distance has negated the effects of the aging process, father time.

If I hit the ball over the last few years, as I did 20-30 years ago, my handicap would have gone up as I aged.
If I played with the old equipment today, my handicap would jump substantially.

I was hitting the ball farther and scoring as well, if not better, when I was 57 and 59 then when I was in my 20's, and I didn't get more athletic or in better shape.

I watched my father, an exceptional player, and his peer group as their games couldn't handle the blue tees, move up to the forward tees to compensate for their loss of distance and its adverse impact on their scoring.

Up until this past year I played Boca Rio and Pine Tree's back tees, in excess of 7,200 yards quite easily.  I couldn't do that in my 20's and 30's.

Equipment has turned back father time, allowed me and others to keep, and in fact, increase the distance we hit the golf ball, which has resulted in retaining our ability to score.

And, let me add, that most courses have lengthened themselves considerably over the last 40 years that I've been playing, which is a factor in scoring.


« Last Edit: February 13, 2004, 11:43:13 AM by Patrick_Mucci »

TEPaul

Re:Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #42 on: February 13, 2004, 11:52:02 AM »
"It’s Wizard of Oz time. The big bad wizard – the manufacturers – need to be exposed."

Tim Weiman:

THAT is precisely what I've been saying on this website for years now---it's all over the archives. Not just that but what I consider to be a very reasonable way to do that. As far as I'm concerned the way I'd propose is the most logical of all---it's honest, it's up front, it's educational, it can test the tenor and response of the great golfing public and their reaction to this very issue before something is done that may not be effective with the great golfing public! It can also put the USGA in a position where even their fears of legal action against them are minimized or rendered ineffective. What I think it would do, if managed effectively (and by the USGA/R&A) would be to put the manufacturers in a corner, in a box, so to speak, and very much with the great golfing public watching and participating!

What the vast majority of the golfing public want and would want to do about this must be known. And if the USGA/R&A goes public on this issue, goes massively public which I feel would be massively important to a vast amout of people, I think they and we can find out what the golfing public want to do about this. Because without them, without knowing what they want and are willing to do, we who are so vocal on this issue are just spitting in the wind anyway!



ForkaB

Re:Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #43 on: February 13, 2004, 11:52:37 AM »
Tom P

I never did "maintain most vociferously that Behr was a ridiculous pompous ass"  In fact I never said that in the first place, nor do I believe it to be true (more precisely, I don't have a clue about his assdom, since I never met the guy.

What I might have said is that Behr's thinking is convuluted and his writing virtually unreadable.  I continue to believe that this is so.

PS--as for the topic in question, "rolling back the ball" does not = "bifurcation"  You can roll it back for everybody, if you want.  That's what the R&A did in the mid 80's.  It worked.

As to "why", well....why is the sky blue?  Only the guys in Far Hills can tell us and they ain't talkin'!

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #44 on: February 13, 2004, 12:05:05 PM »

"Tom, I just got that quote from the Leith Society history of the rules so I'm not sure why the "floater" was disliked, but I'll try to do some research on it tonight.", says JohnV to TEP.

Well, without doing too much research, I can tell you why they did not go big: there were balls available that went much further AND felt better.  I've hit floater balls into a lake driving range, as well as on the course.  I believe that they are still available.  My recollection is that they felt like a mush ball (worse than the 1960s' balata red Maxfli or Hogan).  These balls may not have been exactly the same as Behr advocated, but just like the Cayman ball, I can understand why the consumer rejected it.

Perhaps it is not the USGA or the manufacturers who we should lambaste.  Maybe we should look at ourselves in the mirror and ask why we support those things through our purchases and committee votes that we believe are inimical to the best interests of the game.  I will bet that at the KPIII we will see the ProV1 and its peers as the ball of choice, and an abundance of oversized titanium drivers and cavity-back irons with the latest shaft technology.

Does it really matter what the pros shoot at Royal Melbourne or that they no longer play the course as Dr. MacKenzie intended?  It is their loss, not ours.  For the vast majority of us, the classic courses provide all the strategy and challenge we can hope to care for.  If the pros and competitive amateurs want the same challenge, they should be clamoring on their own for the USGA and tournament sponsors to provide a solution.  It does seem to me, however, that most of the complaining, justified as it may be, is not coming
from these guys.

If the playing elite believe that courses are too short today, let them build longer ones for themselver or accept a tournament ball.  I think that the economic realities of doing the former would result in defaulting to the latter.  There is absolutely no reason why a Merion or even Cherry Hills should be "modernized" to hold a tournament once a decade.  Unless, of course, the members decide in their collective wisdom that that is what they wish to do.  And we've learned from the Yale thread what the insiders think of unsolicited advice from outside.  



Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #45 on: February 13, 2004, 12:17:13 PM »
Tom Paul:

I agree there is a massive need for education. A big problem is getting the mass audience. Both the major magazines and television broadcasts are so tainted by advertizing influence that reasonably fair and balanced views on technology just don't get presented to the golfing public. Those Titleist ads have an incredibly insidious influence, unfortunately.

My recent informal consulting experience is anecdotal, but it does suggest that when you simply point out to people that technology that encourages or requires costly course modifications is not really an "improvement", they get it.

One can simply ask people "Would you buy new tires for your car that required a new engine or transmission?". They'll get it right away.

Or point out that baseball isn't so silly to expand ball parks just because someone can make a baseball that goes further.

Or point out that from a consumer point of view, cheaper is better.

Or point out that in most things we look for technology to lower costs.
Tim Weiman

TEPaul

Re:Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #46 on: February 13, 2004, 12:24:17 PM »
Pat:

On this particular thread you said, in your intiial post, you'd heard the USGA/R&A has decreed there will be no rollback of the golf ball. You asked this website why they were opposed to a rollback. You didn't ask if anyone else was for it or against it---you asked why the regulatory bodies were opposed to a rollback.

I was just wondering if you feel enough information has been supplied to you as to why they're opposed to a rollback? Because from what I can see on this thread an awful lot of information has been supplied as to why they're opposed to a rollback! And an awful lot of that information comes from the USGA/R&A. So do you understand yet WHY they're opposed to a rollback?

TEPaul

Re:Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #47 on: February 13, 2004, 01:02:27 PM »
Tim Weiman:

Regarding your post #45 I'm not talking about golf magazines. Forget about them. I'm talking about the USGA and the R&A going massively public themselves and finding out on their own what the vast golfing public would like to do now and in the future on this issue. To me, it seems at least the time for that.

We live in a world of massive and rapid communication Tim. And the USGA/R&A through their unique and vertically integrated structure in the game of golf reaching from them through other national, regional and local organizations to the golf clubs and golfers all over the world can use that for communication and response.

What they need to do, in my opinion, is hold as massive a PUBLIC convocation as possible, inviting representatives of all the world's tours, the architectural associations of the world, superintendency associations, the manufacturers, golf course operators and whomever else is interested and has a stake in this. Even in the interest of objectivity allow the convocation to be moderated by that interesting and quite impressive "disinterested" committee that's been sitting there with nothing to do for the last 15 years. Even make Bush Sr the chairman of it!

And when that's put together and from a massive convocation ask the damn question of what the great golfing public of the world wants to do about this, what they'd be willing to accept! Use mass communication and their massive vertical structure to ask the questions and determine the response!

In an atmosphere such as this there would be no concern whatsoever of legal action if the USGA and R&A explained to the world what they'd like to recommend. Doing that isn't dictating to anyone, it's not dictating to the manufacturers---all their doing is offering an opinon on this and asking the golfers of the world if that's what they'd go along with!

Then they'd have their answer and if the answer wasn't the one the manufacturers were hoping for there wouldn't be much they could do about it anyway because they got the answer from their constituency too.

If a rollback in the name of a lot of things is what the golfers say they want then they'll get it. If they say they don't want it then the regulatory bodies can't do it because the golfers of the world won't accept it.

Then the USGA/R&A and all of us will know exactly where we all stand and the REAL reason why.

A_Clay_Man

Re:Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #48 on: February 13, 2004, 01:25:32 PM »
TomP- I sensed in your post that if the question were asked, to the entirety of the golfing public, the results would not be the one that anyone on here would want to hear.

After all, we are talking about a select few, who understand the issues well enough, to opine that the game is in peril and going the way of tennis, (I don't know that is true) maybe at the pro level, but the evidence isn't there either, imo.

 Put those few, against the vast many who view the long ball as heroin, and I think we all know the results.(I'm not against asking)

Just watching the long ball, people are mesmorized. It is rather amazing that out of our  little bodies we can project a sphere that far, with just a few ounces of material. It truely is the first things that attracts people to keep coming back to this sport, at least initially. So, it's lure is a powerful narcotic and one not easily reversable.

Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #49 on: February 13, 2004, 01:31:53 PM »
Tom Paul:

You raise many issues and I won't try to respond to them all. But, my consulting experience has been that meetings - especially with large numbers of people - need to be well organized and attendees need to be well prepared. Also, sometimes certain potential participants NEED to be excluded.

My contention is that the golfing public really doesn't understand the golf technology arms race. They have been bombarded with suggestions that it makes sense, that it is "progress", a "natural" evolution, etc. They really haven’t heard the other side.

The USGA could do something really statesmen-like: they could order a copy of Geoff’s book and send it to each member club. Just imagine an attached cover letter:

“Enclosed you will find a copy of Geoff Shackelford’s new book on The Future of Golf in America. The book is not exactly kind in some of the comments it makes about our organization, but clearly Geoff is one of the most thoughtful people in golf today and his message needs to be read and understood”.

Just that gesture alone would restore credibility for the USGA, big time, IMO.

Tim
Tim Weiman

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back