[Bill Gayne]

If anything is ever going to be done it needs to happen ASAP.

I'm 39 and I took up the game approximately thirteen years ago in the early nineties. I have never hit a persimmon wood or played a round of golf with a ball that was substantially different than today's ball. I would venture to guess that the current crop of collegiate players and young pros have a similar history of club and ball use as I do. There is a whole generation of players who will be filling the club/professional/governance ranks of golf in the not to far future that this idea of a "rollback" will be foreign. For the most part I don't hear older players clamoring for a rollback either. The older player is more concerned about keeping there handicap at the same level as days gone by.

The psychology of reversing performance is a tough sell because this young generation of players enjoy the game with the current equipment. How do you convince a young player to give up the high performance equipment when it's all he/she has ever known?

Bill

[TEPaul]

"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."

Adam:

Not at all! I didn't say that and I sure don't mean to imply it either. I really don't know--I have very little idea but I sure would like to find out! I do think it's paramount to attempt to find out before anyone goes down another road!

Who would deny that it'd be the ultimate answer? And if they went about it correctly I really do believe the regulatory bodies could get the answer in an extremely effective way! It would take a lot on their part--some pretty clever organizing but they have the structure and the wherewithall to do it at this point!

If they did this and got the answer many of us are looking for it would be wonderful and it would put them back where they should be--in a responsive mode--and it would also likely put the manufacturers in a box. The manny's don't want to look like a bunch of greedy bad guys and black hats--they don't want to buck their only constituency.

But I have no idea what the great golfing public's answer would be--I just think everyone should try to find out first. I guess the question is what if their answer was something people like us don't want to hear? What would we do then?

[Tim_Weiman]

BillG:

You simply explain that the USGA has decided competitive level golf will emphasize testing player skills as opposed to encouraging a battle of corporate engineers or marketers.

Baseball already does that. It recognizes their game is so inherently good that technology "improvements" aren't needed to make competitive baseball interesting.

Golf is as good a game as baseball. More emphasis on player skill will be refreshing.

[ForkaB]

Tim, et. al.

Am I the only one on this forum who thinks that the current game, even with all its whizz-bang technology, still is a game which requries extreme skill, PARTICULARLY at the highest levels?

It seems to me that there are some very good arguments for a rollback, but some form of "let's reintroduce 'skill'" is surely not one of them.

As someone once said, "these guys are good......"

[JSlonis]

Tim,

C'mon...no improvements in baseball?

Outside of a juiced up baseball and smaller parks you have players who are definitely using "technological improvements".  Baseball has basically refused to police their own game because it has been a dying sport.

Mark McGuire and Barry Bonds can't change their bats to Aluminum so they have changed themselves instead.  I saw a picture of Barry Bonds with the Pirates last week and was shocked to see how less "pumped up" he looked.

I wouldn't hold up Major League Baseball as the righteous example.

[TEPaul]

Tim Weiman:

Come on now, try to be a bit more realistic than that! The USGA/R&A have a lot of power--they certainly have plenty of power to persuade, they've still got plenty of that left my friend, and I'm fairly certain you know that. If only they'd use everything they still have to do it--to try to persuade! What's happening to them now, in my opinion, is they're struggling to figure out how to do that!

I think this is an answer, I really do. What I'm talking about here is doable in this day and age, with communication and their world-wide structure.

When you say something like the great golfing public doesn't have enough information to process an informed answer that may be so now--but the USGA/R&A can give it to them. I'm proposing the vehicle to give it to them. This doesn't have to be done in a day or a week or a month. They---the USGA/R&A should set up whatever the most effective convocation that's possible today---bring all the official entities on, all of them and let them state their cases!

The USGA/R&A can then state their case as a recommendation! And then they can bring the world's golfers' answer in through the Internet and email, mail, telephones, telegraph, national and regional and local associations, cars. boats and trains and pony express if they have to! They've got the power, the structure, the ability to present a good case and persuade and they have the communication ability and the structure to get an answer!

You may not believe this, Tim, but it's my very strong belief that if the sense was remotely there that this is what the public would go along with the USGA/R&A would be elated to do it tomorrow, or today or even yesterday. As far as who believes the ultimate response--ever heard about how accurate polling properly done can be?

Those people on the boards of the USGA and R&A and all those who work there don't want to see this continue, I think I can say I pretty much know that for a fact! I'm sure they're more than a little embarrassed it's gotten to this point. They just don't know how to get themselves out of it without running the risks of getting sued, clobbered, or cast into irrelevency!

This is their out--this is their answer and all they have to do is just gear their asses up as best as they can---and I know they can---and ask the world's golfers the goddamn question with a strong recommendation to what they hope their answer will be and WHY!!!

PS:

I think if the USGA/R&A would mention Geoff's book it'd be a great idea! Geoff has some strong arguments that they just might want to inherit as part of their own recommendations! But they needn't come out on this one hiding behind Geoff Shackelford or anyone else! They don't need to make Geoff lead this convocation. What they need is an answer and I just think they should do everything in their power to get it before they proceed into the future of balls and equipment.

[john_stiles]

Why ?  I'm just not sure.  Could be one of two things.

1)   They actually have fun going about, hobnobbing, having clubs kiss the US Open,  reviewing courses,  altering courses.  This would be the ultimate arm chair GCA gig.

2)  It is easier to do anything else but roll the ball back (in their mind).

After a couple of emails with Dick Rugge regarding the golf ball, the golf ball ODS, etc.     I understood that the USGA will not roll the ball back (see part of USGA position in post #42).

The reply was that basically, we (USGA) are on top of this issue from every aspect,  it (technology) won't be a problem in the future, and we have reached the end of technological advancements having put new/revised B&I rules in place to effectively stop such advancements.

I have corresponded with Dick Rugge who is  'on top of technology'  to USGA's satisfaction.   Unfortunately, the USGA is historically behind the manufacturers.  I sort of doubt anyone who pronounces it isn't a problem, we got it under control, and it may have been an issue but yeah, we got it under control now.

The USGA will not let the tournament scores go down and  the USGA will not roll back the ball. The USGA has no qualms about working with clubs (who want to be 'cool' and prestigious) and basically altering the architecture.

Why can't the USGA just quit going to any course that needs architectural alterations, in their mind, to challenge the best players ?  Why ?   If a club cannot narrow the fairways and speed up the greens to meet scoring expectations ........... just go on to the next course. There are plenty (maybe a few) modern courses in every big city venue that can probably keep the scores up, close to USGA par.

The USGA will not quit (effectively) altering all the old classics.

Everything (save Oakmont, Shinny ?) is going to look like  RJT, Fazio,  Rees after a few more cycles through the rota.

[Bill Gayne]

Tim,

One of the primary reasons that metal bats are not used in major league baseball is the players union concern over the safety of its members. Many high school and colleges have eliminated the use of metal bats for this reason. A similar safety concern is not present with golf balls.

Major league baseball doesn't have a rule making body such as the USGA. Rules on equipment are negotiated with the players union. Simply saying to the professional players we are changing the equipment would probably create a union and lead to similar labor problems which golf definitely does not need.

Bill

[JohnV]

It should be remembered that with the possible exception of Bethpage Black, the first contact between the USGA and a club about a championship is from the club to the USGA.  

They come to the USGA and say, "We would like to have this championship" or simply, "We would like to have A championship."  Then the USGA sends some people there to look at the course.  If the course has no chance of holding a championship they won't say anything about making changes.  

If the course is worthy, they will suggest some changes that would need to happen to make it a better candidate.  Then it is up to the club to decide if it is in their best interest to make those changes.  Nobody twists their arms.

Lets say that the USGA went to clubs A, B and C and said, if you make these changes we'll come and all three of them said, no, we don't want to make that radical a change.  Then the USGA might start to wonder about what they are doing.  But, so far, I haven't heard of any clubs that have said no.  Maybe some of you have.

So, do they do it to just because they like making clubs change?  No, they do it because they feel that the clubs need to make changes to adequately accomodate the event that THE CLUB wants to hold.

Speaking of changes, I hear that Riviera is continuing to make changes even after it is obvious that the US Open isn't coming there.  What's up with that?

[john_stiles]

JohnV,

While that is true in this day and age of reasoning,  the USGA is part of the problem in influencing the alteration, sometimes unfavorably, of GCA.  It is a lot easier than addressing the issues.

Do the clubs invite the USGA and before they arrive, announce that they will move these tees, move these bunkers, etc.  Why won't the USGA accept the scores ?

Because they want a certain score. A certain high score.

One experience, albeit with senior PGA types and not the USGA,  was that the club says 'We would like to host this event again. What do you think ?'     The reply was 'you could'....but if you do this, that, etc. you can have this event and it can actually make money.  All this is intertwined.  US Open and Masters and other events create the standard unfortunately for many golf courses in the USA.

The organization mandating all these GCA changes on the ground, and the length of modern GCA is the organization in change of preserving the game.

Sure, the USGA does not make you build a course a certain length or revise a certain way.  I'll give anyone that worthless point.

It's about the GCA.  Everything is turned on its head what with trying to fix all this wonderful GCA because of the ball and equipment.  The GCA ain't broke.  Don't fix it.

Obviously, the USGA has no qualms in watching many courses go under the open doctors' knives.

If you do not roll back the ball at some point,  it is inevitable that some combination of man and technology will obsolete most GCA, modern and classic.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Paul:

I'm not exactly sure where we disagree. I'm all for the USGA leading a discussion of the state of the game and the influence of technology. But, is there the will to do it?

I'm not in a position to say, but as an outsider, I haven't seen such a desire.

As for the USGA hiding behind Geoff, I just don't see it that way. My point is merely that there should be some required reading/preparation for participants to attend your get together.

Surely, you and I could probably have an interesting discussion about what ought to be part of this reading list. But, I'll put Geoff's book near the top for several reasons:

a) the subject matter/focus of the book
b) the point of view taken
c) it is current
d) it is relatively concise and easy to read
e) it is affordable

BillG:

The point remains competitive golf should emphasize testing player skill rather than being a battle of corporate engineers and marketers.

JohnV:

Honestly, that sounds like the party line spin. Certain venues are worth holding USGA events at. Ideally, there should be a mutual interest between the club and the USGA. If, for whatever reason, a club is getting the impression that major modifications need to be made to accommodate technology "improvements", than the USGA is failing.

They should be first on line saying that technology that encourages or requires course modifications - or building longer, more expensive to build and maintain courses - is NOT progress. THEY should be leading the fight against the golf technology arms race.

[rgkeller]

<<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!<<

My castigation of the usga was not meant to include EVEN Frank Thomas but rather ESPECIALLY Frank Thomas.

It was on his watch that the genie got out of the bottle.

[TEPaul]

"I'm all for the USGA leading a discussion of the state of the game and the influence of technology. But, is there the will to do it?
I'm not in a position to say, but as an outsider, I haven't seen such a desire."

Tim:

This is a proposal, that's all. I don't really know if there's a will to do it. I do know a few to ask who could sure tell me in a hurry though. I find the best approach is to talk to them to try to determine how they look at things and to then try to imagine solutions to things they perceive as obstacles. Matter of fact I was just talking to one (of them) as I was typing this and although he was on a plane about to leave he did say to read Walter Driver's address at the recent annual meeting as it's apparently about the ball and perhaps technical aspects and it involves a pretty large investment in research into the ball (I think). So I think I'll sign off and read that Driver address. Driver, by the way is the co-chair of the USGA's I&B Committee, that committee soon to be renamed I hear!

[ForkaB]

Tom

When Walt Driver ('67) was at Stanford, he used to hit his ball distances that Tom Watson ('71) could only dream of.  I'd be interested to see what he thinks today might be considered to be a "rollback."

[Alfie]

TEP ; "This is a proposal, that's all. I don't really know if there's a will to do it"

I think your posts summarise the present situation perfectly, but before the thread starts to deviate, as I believe it usually does, can I assume that you, with the backing of any others that can be mustered up, would be prepared to put a specified question to the USGA re - WHY they won't consider the roll back rule ? Or another formatted question which would seek a direct answer in relation to what so many speak about at GCA ?

I think, as I think you do also, that the ruling bodies NEED some sort of support before they can stop the roundabout and then perhaps present a case for golf without fear of repercussions !

Although I tend to feel that I'm outsider here, I would be glad to second your proposal, if that's what it is ? Surely a consensus of say, 50 GCA members could be got to give weight and credibility to asking the question ?

How many on here would like, or have the will  "to ask the question ?"  

Or do we just let it roll and endlessly ask ourselves without any possibility of getting the answer ?

Your suggestions ARE doable TEP.

Are we going to do it ?

Alfie Ward.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

With all that has been written and said, I've never heard anyone articulate why, in principle, the USGA is against a roll-back of the ball.

And, I've never seen or heard of a USGA position paper, or opinion, that refutes that increased distance is a reality and a troubling factor in the play and design of golf courses.

It now appears that the former Presidents were in favor of a rollback, but other forces within the USGA weren't, and that those forces are the surviving forces going forward.

I'd just like to know why the USGA felt that a rollback wasn't necessary or desired.

[JohnV]

JohnV,
Do the clubs invite the USGA and before they arrive, announce that they will move these tees, move these bunkers, etc.  Why won't the USGA accept the scores ?

Because they want a certain score. A certain high score.

A certain high score or a certain test of players ability to hit certain shots?  Depends who you ask.

If you do not roll back the ball at some point,  it is inevitable that some combination of man and technology will obsolete most GCA, modern and classic.

Just like the Guttie and the Haskell did when they came along.  The Guttie lowered scores by an average of 3 strokes a round at The Open.  The Haskell lowered them by 3 more strokes a round.  So, courses were modified.  Many became the courses we love today in Britain.

[JohnV]

Ok, I got started on this thread primarily because I was upset by what I believed were unfair and malicious statements about the USGA's volunteers and staff.  Since then, I've found myself having to support their position as opposed to just defending their integrity.  In reality, I would like to see something done about the distance the ball goes, but I also have some faith that the scientific people at the USGA know what they are talking about and that the Executive Committee does care and listens to them.  Of course, they've been wrong before so who really knows.

While searching for some information on the Floater, I found the following from Richard S. Francis' 1939 edition of Golf, Its Rules and Decisions that I'm sure all those who like to see something done will enjoy (at least most of it.)

The first paragraph is the rule on balls as it read back then:

The weight of the ball shall not be greater than 1.62 ounces avoidupois and the size not less than 1.68 inches in diameter.  The Rules of Golf Committee and the Executive Committee of the United States Golf Association will take whatever steps they think necessary to limit the power of the ball with regard to distance, should any ball of greater power be introduced.

Francis then writes:

The Implement and Balls Committee has no easy job on its hands as to golf balls.  The present ball is undoubtedly satisfactory to the rank and file of players who comprise all but a very small percentage of golfers.  To change the ball so a to make it "deader" and so shorter in length and harder to play would deprive millions of at least some of their present joy of playing and that would never do.  On the other hand the present ball in the hands of the younger and very skillful players is making a monkey of golf courses.  It would hardly be practical to have varying standards of ball.  While you and I may, in informal matches, play any ball that pleases us, we cannot do that in tournaments, no matter how poor players we and our fellow competitors may be.  Also you and I are very likely to play the longest ball the law allows, for neither of us wants to give the other any advantage.  So the Committee is hard put to it in trying to keep distance down for the cracks and up for the average run of us.

The Committee authorizes me to quote it as follows:

The increasing distance of the golf ball has been a matter of dep concern to official golfdom for years.  The present ball is generally satisfactory to golf players and any increase in the flight and roll would necessitate further lengthening of golf courses and in many cases it would be necessary to purchase additional land, thus adding to the expense of playing golf.  The physical effort and time required for a round of golf would be increased and nothing would be added to the pleasure of the game.   While there may be other contributory causes to lower scoring, the increasing distance obtained from the ball is the major factor.

Study is continuing in a determined effort to find some means, other than weight and size, to control this distance factor and in this the manufacturers have been co-operative.  It is doubtful if general specifications as to manufacture alone will suffices, as new methods and materials are developed each year.  It is hoped to develop a machine universally accepted as standard that will satisfactorily test the resiliency of the finished ball.

[JohnV]

Floaters:

I tried to find some information about the floaters, but the only things I could come up with so far are from a book titled, "20th Century Golf Chronicle" by Al Barkow and a number of other writers.

An entry from April 30, 1929 says:
The R&A votes down movement for change to a bigger and lighter golf ball, saying it makes the game too difficult.  The USGA says that's the idea, in light of so many better players now in the game.

On Januay 1, 1931 an entry says:
The new larger (1.68 inch), lighter (1.55 ounce) "baloon" golf ball, USGA-approved from this date, will prove very unpopular.

[Alfie]

JohnV,

Compliments on your research and thanks for same.

I keep forcing the issue that golf's biggest problem is anything but new matter and the evidence keeps stacking up to support that. So many here appear to desire some sort of answer as to why the roll back is deemed so unfavourable as a solution to the problem. But nobody appears to want to ask the question, preferably, en masse !

How many here at  GCA would like to ask the question ? Please !

Alfie Ward.

[TEPaul]

Patrick Mucci said again:

"TEPaul,
With all that has been written and said, I've never heard anyone articulate why, in principle, the USGA is against a roll-back of the ball.
And, I've never seen or heard of a USGA position paper, or opinion, that refutes that increased distance is a reality and a troubling factor in the play and design of golf courses."

Patrick:

My God man you're something else! Do I have to hold your hand and explain everything to you? Here's what you do. Go to the USGA's website--it's called USGA.com if you haven't figured that out.

Then click on the "equipment" link on the first page, click on the "equipment" tab on the top of the equipment page, go down about three links on that menu and you'll see an article called "Joint R&A Statement of PRINCIPLES!!!!!!"

Got that? Do you think you could read it and retain it? That's their joint position paper on equipment and distance.

Then click on the hyperlink on the first page of the website where it refers to Walter Driver's remarks at the USGA Annual Meeting last week and that will articulate a lot more for you about why they aren't going to do a rollback because you'll see they want to try some other things that are articulated in those two articles and statements.

And maybe then your question that is this thread's title may be answered for you. I'm not saying you'll agree with it or them but you asked a question and you'll find the answer there. Do you think you can handle that?

Better yet why don't you cut and paste both statement on here. I would have but my computer is acting up.

[TEPaul]

"Tom
When Walt Driver ('67) was at Stanford, he used to hit his ball distances that Tom Watson ('71) could only dream of."

Rich:

I guess I sure could believe that. Don't know him but I did meet him at Ganton last summer and he definitely is a very big man!  

[TEPaul]

By the way, Rich, he's no longer Walt Driver, he's WALTER DRIVER, or MR. DRIVER to you! And if you don't shut your mouth about the USGA in about two years when he's USGA PRESIDENT DRIVER to you he just might add Scotland to the burough of Far Hills New Jersey and fix your little red wagon once and for all!!!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I've read those documents, but, perhaps my reading comprehension skills have diminished.

Could you point out to me, anywhere in any of those articles, where the USGA has articulated why they are not in favor of a rollback ?

Thanks

[TEPaul]

"Golf balls used by the vast majority of highly skilled players today have largely reached the performance limits for initial velocity and overall distance which have been part of the Rules since 1976. The governing bodies believe that golf balls, when hit by highly skilled golfers, should not of themselves fly significantly further than they do today. In the current circumstances, the R&A and the USGA are not advocating that the Rules relating to golf ball specifications be changed other than to modernize test methods."

Pat:

I guess you're reading comprehension has diminished. Why aren't they advocating a rollback? It looks like they believe golf balls have reached the limits of their performance levels and they believe controlling further significant increase can be done through improved tests methods.

Have you got your answer yet? If not and you want to mince words about it--mince the words with them!  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()