[Jim Thompson]

Here's an idea.

Instead of dropping your children off to play soccer or whatever and having your spouse pick them up while you go hit the links, BE A PARENT!  Take your child to the course and teach them how to play a game based on respect and honor. Its good for the game and good for your family.

How do we market that as an industry?

Cheers!

JT

[A_Clay_Man]

Mike H. Kevin R.,
 I prefer the proliferation of low mowed areas, versus, just  chipping areas, because on a fundemantal basis, I believe the abscence of long rough is mandatory, if interest in the sport is to gain any popularity.  The bounce and unpredictable rolls of the ball, causes me to want to watch the TV (ball) very closely. The fact that it ends up in some nether region, is sweet revenge for the natural world. Any golfer worth his salt, should relish in the challenge and  thier ability to recover from said nether region. If not, it's a function of Pampered expectations. And from reading this roundtable and subsequent discussions, I can see there are alot of those who are pampered.

Parents in our generation were heavily influenced by the depression. Ergo, we had to all work for our summer loot. Nowadays, do parents make their kids work? And, not every kid who caddied became a golfer.

[Brad Klein]

Well, I now can see why they didn't even put this in SI's Golf Plus, much less SI proper. Amazingly disappointing to read. Shackelford was at least interesting and provocative, Faxon totally self-serving, and Fay came off not really willing to engage very much. Maybe something happened with my issue, but I am surprised that this week there's nothing on the U.S. Open in SI.You'd think they could schedule the Golf Plus section accordingly. Waiting for next week, I assume, but that'll be about 3-days too late.

[Jason Topp]

Congrats Geoff on fighting the good fight in the face of a clearly stacked deck.  As a lawyer who does battle in the regulatory arena, I know how much of a challenge that can be, particularly with a hostile "neutral" and hostile press.

I thought the exchange about the USGA being concerned after the first two rounds at Shinnecock was interesting.  Even if one accepts Fay's position that the rough was not enough of a penalty (instead of scores being too low), the reason for the problem was because guys could hit it far enough to have wedges or short irons into the greens.

Unfortunately, I think Shinnecock proved itself to be obsolete at today's driving distances.  Thus, the site of two of the most entertaining US Opens in the last 20 years was turned into a joke to combat the distance problem.

I think people should cut Faxon some slack.  If I worked for Titleist, I would either say the same things he did or expect to lose my job.  It would be interesting to see how much prep time he put in with the Acushnet PR people.  They would have known in advance precisely what Geoff would say based on his book and other writings.

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

David Tepper,

I thought that everyone gave reasoned responses, understanding them in the context of their own perspectives and interests.

The problem, as I see it, was that this was akin to asking patients with the same general disorder to diagnose themselves, and then proscribe a protocol for treatment.

Brad Faxon is a terrific fellow and a terrific golfer, but, he like others may not recognize the symptoms, especially different symptoms that others with the same general disorder may experience.

David Fay is also a terrific fellow, but his assessment and his vision of the game, today and into the future differs from some who lurk and/or post on GCA.com.

One of the reasons that corporations have outside directors is to obtain a more diverse and global perspective.   When a Board of Directors is concentrated within an organization I'm not so sure that the organization is the recipient of diverse and global perspectives, and thus tends to have a monolithic view of their world.

What I was disappointed in was the lack of discussion regarding the millions and millions of dollars that clubs are spending in order to keep up with the technology, while at the same time disfiguring their golf courses, and eradicating their distinctive design integrity.

Wonderful golf courses, designed by the "Golden Age" architects are contemplating moving bunkers and other unique features, all with the intent of keeping current with the ball and equipment.

And, for whom ?

Their average member ?

Or, the better player   ?

I'd rather see the creation of a competition ball and the reduction of clubhead size over the next 10-15 years.

[Agman]

Brad Klein --
     Perhaps your mailman just doesn't like you...

js

[Brad Klein]

Agman,

I've been getting Golf Plus for 10+ years. Did I suddeny l get dropped, or was Golf Plus not in this week's rotation?

Brad

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Brad,
The US Open issue is a stand-alone sent separate of the magazine. They've been doing this for a few years now. The roundtable is in there, as was planned (it was never intended to appear in the main magazine). Golf Plus does the same for some of the other majors. My Open issue arrived at the same time as the magazine yesterday. For the Masters, the stand alone came a few days after the normal Wednesday arrival of SI.

SI is remarkably consistent with delivery times. Golf World and Golfweek are all over the place, though Golf World has been much better lately. When I've called circulation folks to ask why issues take a 3-4 weeks to arrive, I've been told that my local postal employees must be reading them. Right!
Geoff

[Dan Kelly]

Agman --

Who chose the participants for this roundtable? You?

Is the full transcript available somewhere?

Thanks.

Dan

[Agman]

Dan --
     We wanted a spectrum. The republication of Geoff's book in hardcover made him a likely co-conspirator. Then we called -- in order -- Fay, Faxon and Dorman, and while all agreed, logistics were something of a nightmare.
      As for the original transcript, all I can say is there's a better chance of sniffing out Deep Throat's identity...

js

[Brad Klein]

Got it - I was diverted by the SI and the pile of bills that fell from the mail this afternoon.

Geoff, sad to say, no bombshell. It was defused!

[Kevin_Reilly]

As for the original transcript, all I can say is there's a better chance of sniffing out Deep Throat's identity...

That quote reminds me of another quote on this site...

Last year, in one of the most important stories since Watergate, he opened golf’s version of Pandora’s Box by shining a light into the dark corners of GolfClubAtlas.com for Sports Illustrated.

Pandora's Box II would be the audio files from the covert recording of that lunch!

[Jason Topp]

No wind in DC today.  On 17 (467 yds), Els hits drive 347 and approaches the green with a 3/4 wedge.  When he won the US Open he had 212 into the green with a 5 iron.  Which shot is more interestig?

[Rick Shefchik]

Jason -- DL III says it doesn't make any difference.

[Dan Kelly]

Then we called -- in order -- Fay, Faxon and Dorman...

Why Faxon?

[TEPaul]

"Many of the discussions on here only talk about the game with regards the American game and not much else. Was the roundtable just about America or the game in general?  If it was about the game in America then I apologise but I thought the discussion was about the game in general and I feel therefore my points are justified."

Brian:

This isn't about what's discussed on this website, it's about what was discussed in the Roundtable discussion between Fay, Shackelford, Faxon and Dorman at the Rhode Island C.C. for Sports Illustrated.  All the participants are American as well as SI. I see nothing wrong with including participants from Europe but Fay is the Executive Director of the USGA which only represents America (and a few other areas) in the matter of I&B. The R&A basically represents the rest of the world in I&B.

A lot of people on here and elsewhere are highly critical of Fay and the USGA for failure to act aggressively on I&B matters but one cannot help but notice (if they really want to be even-handed on the issue of I&B generally) that if the USGA is or has been asleep at the switch on I&B and technologic advances in ball and equipment the R&A has been totally moribund on the issue---and that's the truth.

If the USGA ever does get around to even proposing doing something about distance and I&B and technology, their next biggest problem is going to be getting the R&A to listen and go along with it. And if the COR fiasco with the R&A is any evidence the USGA is going to have their work cut out for them getting the R&A to wake up and go along with things.

[Kevin_Reilly]

Then we called -- in order -- Fay, Faxon and Dorman...

Why Faxon?

DL III was busy talking to Mr. Spike.  

[TEPaul]

"Good, but times have moved on and young people like myself and younger are in an age were we are spoilt and do not need to caddy to be able to play the game.  Times have moved on, kids do not need to caddy to play the game anymore. In America or anywhere else in the world."

I really rather doubt you would say that if you could see the Evans Caddy Scholarship program in Chicago or even the J.Wood Platt Caddy Scholarship Program in Philadelphia.

Perhaps the largest detriment to a strong and healthy caddie program at most all American clubs is generally most every club undercuts the use of a caddie by the price of a cart. The reason is obvious--clubs make money on carts and not on caddies.

However, if a club really wants to protect the use of caddies they need to price the use of a cart at least commensurate to a caddie. If they did that they would recoop the money they lost when cart use declines and the decline in cart use would be taken up by the greater use of a caddies.

[Dan_Callahan]

When did this idea of caddie as panacea enter the discussion? I understand Fay's point about growing the game, but it's entirely possible that many golfers prefer NOT to have a caddie (even when available). If there was any demand at all for this service, don't you think that public courses would have hundreds of caddies lined up, pay them a crappy wage, and make a profit off of them?

I play periodically at a course that mandates the use of caddies on weekends before noon. I intentionally avoid playing at those times because I don't like to have a caddie. Given a choice, I would walk, carry my own bag, and play my own game without having someone tell me how to play a hole. That to me is one of the beautiful things about the game: simplicity.

[Kyle Harris]

Dan,

It's not quite that simple. Caddies as club employees require insurance, and are also subject to labor laws.

Also, if you're caddies talk too much, they're bad...

"Show up, keep up, shut up..."

 

[Brent Hutto]

TomP,

A caddie is more expensive than a cart. That's not simply a bad pricing decision, there is a genuine and substantial difference in cost. Now there may be a valid argument that a caddie is better than a cart and therefore worth the higher cost but it appears that a lot of golfers don't value the caddie experience as highly as tooling around in a motorized cart. Hey, even with a caddie carrying your clubs you've still got to walk to your ball.

Based on my very, very limited experience with caddies I'm with Dan Callahan. Most times I like being on my own and a caddie would be as much hindrance as help, notwithstanding certain special occasions where a good caddie can be a godsend. There are some people, myself included, who are acutely uncomfortable with unneeded personal services such as having someone carry or clean ones golf clubs, clean ones shoes or carry small pieces of luggage. Then again, I'm acutely uncomfortable riding in a golf cart when I could be walking.

[Kevin_Reilly]

When did this idea of caddie as panacea enter the discussion?

That's I think the one thing I disagree with Geoff about.  This is an unpopular opinion on this site, but I think caddies are an anachronism.  I need someone to carry my bag and give me advice like I need someone to carry my single bag up to the hotel room.  I can't think of any other sport (excluding racing)off the top of my head where the competitors need a support system on the playing field.  I guess gymnasts need a boost to get their hands on the rings.

[A.G._Crockett]

The caddy idea smacks of a serious "good old days" syndrome, methinks.  In any event, it is a dead letter.  For carrying a bag (or two) for four hours, a kid will make less money than they can make mowing lawns or flipping burgers or babysitting and work a lot harder in the bargain.  Additionally, as has been pointed out there is little demand for caddies, as well as a great motivation for courses NOT to disrupt the revenue stream of cart golf.  

If you want to "grow the game" by getting more kids involved, do two things:
1. make golf cheaper; don't urge kids to get a job!
2. make it clear to members of clubs that kids WILL be on the course during the afternoons and summer mornings, that they will be playing less well and possibly somewhat more slowly, and that their presence on the course is part of the club's total program.  My experience has been that people love to talk about junior golf, but go absolutely nuts when there are actually kids on "their" golf course!

I liked the roundtable; as Patrick Mucci pointed out, all participants gave well-reasoned answers given their positions and perspectives.  Having said that, the USGA probably does a lot of other things better than set up golf courses for tournament play, so no surprise when it ain't perfect.  Also, it is asking a lot to expect active tour players to push for change in their profession while they are still active.  I suspect that is much too threatening for most players to embrace.  

[Kyle Harris]

I normally don't talk about my compensation on here, but you guys are way off with how much caddies make.

As a AA at Lookaway, I was making about $120 a round. I double looped a lot, too.... so yeah, I hardly even make that now.

All cash, too.

[Brian Phillips]

I really rather doubt you would say that if you could see the Evans Caddy Scholarship program in Chicago or even the J.Wood Platt Caddy Scholarship Program in Philadelphia.
How many are you talking about...one hundred..two...what do you mean that is so good about it?

Perhaps the largest detriment to a strong and healthy caddie program at most all American clubs is generally most every club undercuts the use of a caddie by the price of a cart. The reason is obvious--clubs make money on carts and not on caddies.The largest detriment to American golf IS the golf CART...get off your backsides and walk the course...why the hell do you need a caddie or a cart for that matter? In Europe we don't need to have caddie programs because golf is near enough free for juniors.  If you don't have a certain % of junior membership then you are not allowed membership of the Golf Union in Norway....I bet you don't have that rule in the USGA...you wouldn't dare or be allowed...

Tom you have met Jeremy Turner.  He designed a course nearby my home town and the membership joining fee for adults is about 5000 USD the annual subs is around 700 USD.  This a fully irrigated 18 hole golf course with USGA greens.  The membership for juniors is....now get this....157 USD per year and they have full rights to the course. Now that is the best way to promote golf...give them a membership at a low price so that they get hooked on the game.  Then at 18 when they have to pay a full membership they will be more than willing.  We have over 200 juniors at the club and the contract with the Pro includes X amount of training for the juniors....

However, if a club really wants to protect the use of caddies they need to price the use of a cart at least commensurate to a caddie. If they did that they would recoop the money they lost when cart use declines and the decline in cart use would be taken up by the greater use of a caddies.Just get rid of the bloody carts...simple

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()