[Jeff_Lewis]

...and today is my 53rd birthday....so I guess they have some more time to get something right.

They lost control of the ball. And our beloved architecture suffers as a result.  They simply needed to make sure the distance standard was calculated based on appropriate clubhead speed.  That was not hard to do. But they were either outsmarted by Titleist or co-opted.   And that failure is a complete and utter disaster.

Who cares where you hold your putter?  For years and years, no player with a long putter won a major.  If it were such an advantage, the majority of players would have used the "illegal" method.  It wasn't.

The rules are insanely complicated.  Yesterday is just the latest example.  The game is HARD.  It really is not fun for a lot of people who try it.   Let's make it more accessible, not less.

Handicaps and pace of play. WHY WHY WHY does the USGA make the average golfer think they need to finish golf holes to post a score?  All of this bland messaging about picking up the pace.  THE problem is that most people think they can't post a valid score on a hole unless they finish. Almost everybody who plays golf plays match play.   So, let's make sure they pick their ball up when their partner has control of the hole.  The USGA is blind to this problem which they created by having golfers post every score they shoot. Why are they not working to solve it? 

What are our games biggest problems?

When I was a kid, I played the same game I watched on TV.  I hit a 7 iron the same distance as the pros.   Now I hit a 7 iron as far as they hit a wedge. The Ball is out of control.

It takes too long. GET PEOPLE TO PICK UP. 

The courses keep having to change and adapt and spend money for the tiniest percentage of players who are overwhelming the courses with ball technology.  The Ball is out of control.

Golf may die because it is too hard, costs too much and takes too long.  And though we walk in the players footsteps, we cannot replicate their feats. 

I like it.  I hope that the next generation takes over the USGA and turns it into the United States Golf Association, instead of whatever it has been in my experience.


 
a

[John Kavanaugh]

And my high school time in the 400 meters would have won the gold medal the last time golf was in the Olympics. Every sport is bigger, faster, stronger regardless of the ball. Really, you're 53 and can't hit it as far as the best athletes in the world. Somebody has got to pay!!!

[noonan]

Agree with the OP 100%

[Mike Sweeney]

I like it.  I hope that the next generation takes over the USGA and turns it into the United States Golf Association, instead of whatever it has been in my experience.

I am taking a class this summer that in part covers the history of some government institutions in NY State. It is really really hard to kill them.


The best way is to offer a better alternative like in the for-profit world. See Uber vs NYC Yellow Cabs.


I tried Golf Canada for golf and our Canadian friends here are saying similar things about USGA style in Canada.


So who could run an alternative golf society to the USGA?


Well we have it right here. It is called Golf Club Atlas, and our leader is "Golf's Most Beloved."

[Jeff_Lewis]

The USGA was supposed to have stopped the ball from going further many years ago.   The problem was they used my clubhead speed instead of Dustin Johnson's to measure that progress.   So, they purposefully stopped me from getting longer, but the manufacturers innovated to make DJ longer and longer and longer. The ball was engineered to optimize around a faster speed than what was used on the test.  Of course his Olympic-quality physical talents probably didn't hurt him either. The Evil Empire's approach accentuated the differences between amateurs and professionals when one of the charms of the game was that the professional game at least bore a resemblance to the one the rest of us played.

And yes, I do hit my much lighter, more precisely weighted, shut down 7 iron about 15-20 yards further than I did in high school.   I think we can ascribe pretty much all of that improvement to the fact that it is really a 5.5 or 6 iron vs. the specs of the clubs 35 years ago.  Or perhaps that improvement is the result of my training regimen?

The handicap system.   What a beauty.   Who said, "Let's give people handicaps that correspond to their 20th percentile score, that way they will be even more miserable playing this difficult game than they would otherwise be"? 113 slope is the baseline? Why not 100? And this .96 adjustment is rather fiendish. Wouldn't people have more fun if they beat their handicap half of the time, rather than 1 out of 5? I am sure most people have no idea that the USGA handicap is intended to represent their potential ability, rather than their actual ability. 

[Keith Phillips]

Great OP and I agree with much of it...but before I joined a private club 20 years ago I'd played munis for the previous 20 and had never played match play...Iother than watching the Ryder Cup, I had no idea what match play even was.  My son is 27 and just returned from a golf trip with 11 buddies - 4 rounds, all competed as nine hole 'stroke play' matches, just like their high school golf teams used to play.  So on that minor point I disagree.  I do agree though that the game is VERY hard for a novice - just getting the ball airborne and on line is a chore - the 12" golf hole doesn't solve the problem that 'getting to the green' is the fundamental challenge for novices - the USGA should be leading the charge to build more pitch-and-putt courses, and more 3, 6 and 9 hole courses - perhaps even amending the equipment to make golf accessible the way 'pickle ball' is accessible for those that have difficulty playing tennis.

[Dave McCollum]

We got some help from one of their agronomists once (an over-priced USGA consultancy service), which he did pro bono on a day off for our budget operation.  He eventually left the USGA and now sells us sod.  We also use some of their online agronomy publications.  I don't really know what else they do beyond their PR machine claims.  It does seem to me that a big part of what they do is run or participate in golf tournaments.  For example, every year when they have the formal green Jacket presentation at the Masters, there does seem to be a lot of blue blazers mixed in with the green jackets in the members gallery.  My guess is if you looked hard enough, you might find a few good works, such as funding turf grass research.  OTOH, Mike Young is probably right:  golf would go on without them.         

[archie_struthers]

 


My beef with the USGA was about the handicap system geared on potential not real scores.  Once a year in my youth I would dutifully write a letter explaining that real score average , after adjustments , was the fair way to measure .  After ten years I gave up . 


If you are a good athlete , or were, who occasionally gets it going and shoots a low score , you are punished . Of course you are happy but the guy who shoots 73-75-76 - 74-76 has a much higher number that the guy who shoots 68-80 -70-82-76.   Being the latter guy of course my position would be that our average score is more indicative of our true abilities . Especially if you play 70 rounds a year .


Only sport that handicaps this way .

[Niall C]

Jeff


It's rare I've read so much nonsense in one post, so very well done, very entertaining 


As someone who is a couple of years younger than you I'm pleased to say my handicap is the lowest its ever been and I now hit my 7 iron about 5-10 yards shorter than I did in my youth. I can however hit the ball more consistently and get it airborne easier which I'd have thought would have been a good thing given your concern that we are turning people off golf because it's too hard. As to whether Dustin and Rory are hitting the ball further than they did ten years ago..........well, who cares.


All the best


Niall

[John Kavanaugh]

Why shouldn't bad golfers be allowed to do their best? Let them try to break 100 the old fashioned way. Picking up is for schmucks.

[John Kavanaugh]

From a pure architectural standpoint compare the courses competing and holding USGA events to those who hold PGA events and ask yourself where you would like to play. Tom Meeks is 100% responsible for the tree removal at Victoria National and the course continues to improve because of the USGA carrot. It's true at many of the finest courses in the county.

[Jeff_Lewis]

John K.  Your 100 aspirant won't be picking up if he is a factor in deciding the hole. It's likely that if he were playing well enough to shoot a target score that he wouldn't be picking up. 
And remind me not to play behind your group. 

Does anybody really think that the fitter than fit McIlroy, Day and DJ would hit Jack NIcklaus' 1962 ball with his 1962 club (and 1962 physique) meaningfully further than Jack did?

Niall, I so enjoy a mean-spirited post that ends with "all the best".  IMHO the salutation is an empty gesture. 

I'm starting to remember why I didn't post here for a few years.  Such a lovely environment. 

I guess I should have started with a disclaimer.  If you don't care about pace of play, the game's cost, or its' accessibility don't read any further.

[jeffwarne]

John K.  Your 100 aspirant won't be picking up if he is a factor in deciding the hole. It's likely that if he were playing well enough to shoot a target score that he wouldn't be picking up. 

And remind me not to play behind your group. 

Niall, I so enjoy a mean-spirited post that ends with "all the best".  IMHO the salutation is an empty gesture. 

I'm starting to remember why I didn't post here for a few years.  Such a lovely environment. 

I guess I should have started with a disclaimer.  If you don't care about pace of play, the game's cost, or its' accessibility don't read any further.

Jeff,
Agree with much of your premise.


Niall,
the reason many of us care that DJ and others hit it farther (due to technology) than he did 10 years ago is the ever rising scale of the game.
I played with four 7-10 handicappers in a pro-am a week ago on a classic course-they absolutely bombed it and we ALL were waiting on the tee repeatedly on short par 4's and par 5's all reachable-none of which were reachable when I first played there 24 years ago (when I was presumably stronger at 29)
Even that is somewhat remotely palatable, but when the USGA sends out an unsolicited report that states that distance is static since 2005, I have to call bullshit and wonder why they published it-other than to provide cover for the next generation of inevitable gains.


Yes golf is hard, and these guys wedge play sucked, but the scale has definitely changed making corridors tighter, slowing play due to potential,walks and walkbacks between tee and green, and reducing safety due to wider range of distance.


The most frustrating part is the perceived "5 more yards" available through technology every year due to tech. loft cheating etc., making the haves seemingly at a huge advantage to the have nots, even if it's not exactly true. years ago you used a good set of irons for 5-20 years.
I recognize that one can get slightly older models at a good discount, but again it disgusts me that the public is continually duped into believing they need to-and to some degree they do to keep up.


Inevitably, a bigger scale costs more in real estate, maintenance, pace of play-so while it may not affect me personally, it affects the game and we all should care about that.

[Terry Lavin]

The USGA is the Common Enemy hereabouts and much of it is justified. The pompous, tone-deaf delivery of their penalty pondering as seen on live television was absolutely devastating.

But I just don't fully understand how technology has ruined the game as some seem to argue. If you don't want to watch Dustin hit a 378 yard drive, turn the channel. Most people want to watch that.

The technological advances are the product of ingenuity and capitalism. And they help virtually every amateur golfer. I hit the ball farther at 62 than I did at 42 and it ain't because of any training regimen.

So I won't whine about the USGA's unwillingness to harness technology. I think that stance has helped the game, helped the golf economy and helped keep the game current. Dialing back technology through rules will lead to lawsuits that the USGA would lose.

Bifurcation is an issue worth discussing, but dialing back the ball and stifling club improvement would be bad for the game.

[Steve Lapper]

Jeff,


  Well done...although I'd hardly have expected less.


  One of the most critical issues about the USGA so rarely addressed is the incestuous nature of it's organizational structure and governance. The omnipotent Nominating Committee, and hand-picked Executive Committee have effectively ensured the perpetuation of an inbred provincialism that excludes fresh thought and practices. A perfect example is the appointment of it's present President....Diana Murphy...a wife of a past President and private club spouse who falls right into line with the ruling cabal.


  This cabal serves their own personal interests and protects such with picks that are almost vetted by genetic disposition to adherence to elite private club traditionalism. Occasionally, with a greater eye on appeasement than transparency, they allow an Executive Director to stretch out some dictum and claim a connection to the general public population (i.e. going to Bethpage Black, etc..). They use the ED as the public face to deflect and handle all criticism while they prop up their sock-less loafers on their antique desks and order their underlings  to freshen up their G&Ts. Practically pathetic efforts to promote play or speed up pace are half-hearted when compared to their cognitive dissonance about the ball and the protection of par at championships.


  I've personally witnessed them waste public money (nothing like seeing Walt Driver & Fred Ridley, with clubs in tow, boarding their private jet a few year back) and later discovering it's all going on the USGA's tab! Nothing like watching them up close drive out a few good folks, whom after making significant contributions, had the audacity to think outside the conventional box....and refused to kowtow to the reigning Blue Bloods and royalty.


 Frankly, I really think the USGA, as currently structured and operated, doesn't deserve our support (save for an agronomy section that could easily be spun out) and is effectively doomed. Sunday's action may well serve to be just a prelude.

[John Kavanaugh]

Does anybody really think that the fitter than fit McIlroy, Day and DJ would hit Jack NIcklaus' 1962 ball with his 1962 club (and 1962 physique) meaningfully further than Jack did?

I'm sorry but I am only familiar with ball and club technology of the late 70's. Even then there were rumors that the pros had specific compressions built for them. Remember the Pro Traj 100 compression Titleist? Customization was just starting to really take off. So yes during that period the athletes today along with the computerized technology that measures spin, launch angle, etc would build a specific system that could hit the ball much farther than the best of the day.  In other words, it's not the ball, it's everything and the ball. You may change the ball but you can't change the everything.

[jeffwarne]

The USGA is the Common Enemy hereabouts and much of it is justified. The pompous, tone-deaf delivery of their penalty pondering as seen on live television was absolutely devastating.

But I just don't fully understand how technology has ruined the game as some seem to argue. If you don't want to watch Dustin hit a 378 yard drive, turn the channel. Most people want to watch that.

The technological advances are the product of ingenuity and capitalism. And they help virtually every amateur golfer. I hit the ball farther at 62 than I did at 42 and it ain't because of any training regimen.

So I won't whine about the USGA's unwillingness to harness technology. I think that stance has helped the game, helped the golf economy and helped keep the game current. Dialing back technology through rules will lead to lawsuits that the USGA would lose.

Bifurcation is an issue worth discussing, but dialing back the ball and stifling club improvement would be bad for the game.

Terry,
we're just going to have to disagree about technology.
Is golf healthier now than it was 20 years ago?
Aren't way less peole playing it?
So I won't say tech caused that but I certainly won't say tech has helped the game grow


I personally hate walking backwards to a tee on every classic course I play in an event, and I personally hate watching the search/spend for the perfect driver by amateurs every spring
Are we going to be more impressed when DJ's son hits it 478 and chips backwards to a par 4?


People LOVE watching pros crush it.
there's no disputing that.
I watched Nicklaus crush it for years at Augusta especially and elsewhere.
It was awe inspiring-280-300 yards.
DJ hitting it 350 is no more inspiring and no one would know the difference without the graphics.
ANGC has become a spectator bottleneck due to walkbacks that never existed before the recent tech burst.
What will it and other classics look like in 25 years?


It's all relative.


baseballs that go 400 feet are impressive by high schoolers, 500 feet by pros.
is the game better if they hit it 20% farther and pop flies become home runs, or should all stadiums be enlarged to suit the fake long ball tech could bring.


I hit it farther at 53 than 21, you hit it farther at 62 than 42.
How can that be the right thing?
Would you quit if you hit it shorter now at 62 than 42.
I wouldn't-i love golf not geritol or plastic surgery

[John Kavanaugh]

Let's not pretend that the thrill of getting a new driver for Christmas is a new thing. I just had the most wonderful day dream flashback picturing the wonderful drivers of my past. Hope on a stick.

[Terry Lavin]

Hitting it farther than I did 20 years ago keeps my interest in spending more days on the golf course. I rather doubt I'd play as much if I were hitting balatas with persimmon woods and forged irons.

I agree with the annoyances of the long walks from green to new back tees on a lot of classic courses. That's why I always try to play from front/middle tees at about 6400 yards. 

[Joe Schackman]

I'm 28 years old. I'm a millennial golfer. I seem to be a rare breed.

I have friends who play but all of them, like me, started golfing when we were young. Very few of my friends, despite me pleading, have taken up golf as adults. I don't know if I just have lame friends or if this is true across my generation. Heck maybe this was always the case and that golf really just is a niche game. Maybe the vast majority of players are early adopters and this "grow the game" is just a pipe dream and the Tiger-Boom jaded everyone. But regardless I'm concerned.

This isn't the USGA's fault per se but the governing bodies of the game need to be more concerned about the lack of growth than they seem to be. I wish they would attack this issue with the zest & zeal of which they banned anchored putters, regulated which scores can be submitted for handicaps and punished Dustin Johnson.

[jeffwarne]

Hitting it farther than I did 20 years ago keeps my interest in spending more days on the golf course. I rather doubt I'd play as much if I were hitting balatas with persimmon woods and forged irons.

I agree with the annoyances of the long walks from green to new back tees on a lot of classic courses. That's why I always try to play from front/middle tees at about 6400 yards. 

Terry,
If you were playing woods and balatas, the back tees would be 6400 yards and you'd be walking straight to the 6000 yarders.
faster golf,smaller scale

[Keith Phillips]

I agree with the objective of 'faster golf, smaller scale'.  Separately, I do think the USGA deserves credit for pushing the importance of tree removal - they have been very strong on that point at my club, and their credibility has made it easier for us to do the right thing.

[Niall C]

Sorry Jeff L, clearly the use of emoticons mean nothing these days and also clearly the "All the best" was taken as being ironic which it wasn't meant to be. In fairness, I did misjudge your OP as I thought there was a fair bit of tongue in cheek in it, and thought I was responding in kind. My apologies for misunderstanding you.


On the basis therefore that your OP is entirely serious, let me expand on the point I was making about improved equipment making the game better (which I appreciate is a value judgement), as well as easier and more fun (which I'd suggest is fairly self-evident). I can recall being taught the game almost as a toddler with cut down hickory clubs and greying old "Dunlop 65's" that had long ceased to be round and had died through a thousand cuts. I can recall then graduating onto steel shafted irons with small bladed heads (and even smaller sweet spots) and the thinnest grips, that stung every time you had a mis-hit, which was often.


We now play with clubs and balls that are much better spec and a lot easier to use and generally keep better. I suspect in any price comparison the cost has gone down as well. All that happened in your life time and my lifetime when the USGA and the R&A have been on watch. How fewer golfers would we have if we were still playing with the earliest steel shafted small headed bladed irons and balls that ceased to be circular within a dozen holes. Conversely how many more golfers do we have over that period during the USGA's watch ?


Niall 

[Jim Hoak]

Jeff, good points.  But who would you want controlling the game of golf?
I have issues with the USGA on equipment, rules, handicapping, etc.  But I certainly don't want control to be in the hands of the equipment companies, the club pros--and, most importantly, not in the hands of touring pros, who think they are playing the same game we play.  All would be dedicated to their narrow slice of the game to the exclusion of every-day golfers.
I guess I'll take my chances with dedicated amateurs who love the game.  Not a great record, but better than the alternative?

[John Kavanaugh]

Is there really fewer golfers or just fewer golfers per course? When I started playing in 1968 me and my buds could have the course to ourselves all day long. Sometimes play 54 holes a day on a nine hole course. Now try to find a course where a dozen young shitheads rule the roost. There were one or two retired old guys out there playing and they were nice as hell, inspirational to say the least. Now the same course is packed with old guys who would just as soon eat a kid as play with em.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()