Ammerman Speaks

Thanks to Steven T. for noticing this Joe Logan sit down with recently retired USGA Executive Committee member Craig Ammerman, who gets right to the point:

Q: What are the biggest issues facing the USGA and golf?

A: The USGA needs to find a new revenue source or two, which is why you've seen announcements about corporate sponsors (American Express, Lexus). Over the last 15 years, the staff of the USGA has more than doubled because we are doing things nobody thought of 20 years ago. To continue doing them is going to require additional sources of revenue because the single biggest source - TV rights fees - are declining.

Hey, I can think of oh, at least $500,000 in savings that could go to the recently scratched tuition assistance program.

This is interesting.

Q: The USGA has been criticized by some of the biggest names in golf, like Jack Nicklaus, for dropping the ball on the golf ball. Are they correct?

A: In 2002, the executive committee approved spending whatever was required to learn all there is to know about the golf ball. The staff and those they've retained have done that. The final piece, or a final piece, should be obtained this year when balls made by leading manufacturers to go 15 and 25 yards less than today's ball will be field-tested with players of all skill levels. Decisions that follow will no doubt be influenced by those field tests.

Now, why is that no one at the USGA can give that answer when asked about the ball testing? That wasn't so hard, was it?

Q: Any disappointments or business left undone?

A: The worst thing that happened in my five years was [the super-slick seventh green] Sunday at Shinnecock. It was embarrassing. I was supposed to be out on the course as a rules official that day. Once I realized what was going on, I spent the day in the media center, so I could give [USGA president] Fred Ridley and [championship committee chairman] Walter Driver a summary of what reporters and players were saying.

But they took that information and handled it so well!

What, they weren't able to see for themselves it was a disaster. Oh that's right, no, they couldn't.

Comments

[adam]

2002?

That's a bit embarrassing isn't it?

[Chuck]

Quoth Geoff: "Now, why is that no one at the USGA can give that answer when asked about the ball testing? That wasn't so hard, was it?"

Truer words were never spoken.

Mr. Driver has said of the USGA critics, "They don't have the data we do." Well, there's five years of data out there, following an Executive Committee go-ahead for "spending whatever was required to learn all there is to know about the golf ball." We must be given a report, and not just some talking points.

I'm not sure but what it might be good to have ten more Craig Ammermans on the Executive Committee.

[jneu]

If the USGA solicits dollars for membership, and it has tax-exempt status, by what argument -- legal or sensible -- can it treat its data as proprietary? Surely there are some lawyers out there who aren't already on the USGA board, and can force disclosure of its studies.

[Michael]

I can't really understand the rationale for waiting to release the report until all the test data from the reduced flight balls are in. Why not release that part of the report that deals with data from existing balls now, and the reduced flight ball report when it is finished? Didn't they release the grooves study report in two parts? And surely they concluded testing on existing balls years ago, right?

I found the phrase "field-tested by players of all skill level" interesting. Doubtless they had no trouble finding amateurs of varying skills who were willing to take some of the reduced flight balls out for a spin during their Sunday rounds, but who else. Field testing, in my view, should encompass testing by professionals under tournament conditions. Somehow, I doubt there were any takers from the ranks of competitive golfers for that mission.

[Geoff]

Michael,
You make a great point, especially in light of the underwhelming field testing in the grooves study.

[TEPaul]

"This is interesting.


Q: The USGA has been criticized by some of the biggest names in golf, like Jack Nicklaus, for dropping the ball on the golf ball. Are they correct?

A: In 2002, the executive committee approved spending whatever was required to learn all there is to know about the golf ball. The staff and those they've retained have done that. The final piece, or a final piece, should be obtained this year when balls made by leading manufacturers to go 15 and 25 yards less than today's ball will be field-tested with players of all skill levels. Decisions that follow will no doubt be influenced by those field tests.

Now, why is that no one at the USGA can give that answer when asked about the ball testing? That wasn't so hard, was it?"

That's funny, I seem to remember a really good and comprehensive annual I&B committee report delivered to about 500 poeple at the 2006 USGA Annual Meeting in Feb in Atlanta by I&B committee chairman Jim Vernon that said just about exactly the same thing Craig Ammerman did in that interview answer above. I certainly can't guarantee it but something tells me the manufacturers were probably listening and if I'm not mistaken I believe Tim Finchem was in the room too.

[Barry]

TEPaul, if this was indeed a stated policy direction for the USGA, why the massive amount of conflicting signals since Vernon's speech in 2/06? First we have the widely circulated "Distance Myths" from last summer, then Walter Driver's seeming assertion on his ESPN chat that the problem was in hand and further correction was not needed?

[TEPaul]

Barry:

I've heard some mention the "distance myths" or conflicting reports and I don't believe I'd be too concerned about them.

But looking at Vernon's report last year it seems Ammerman's remarks in the Philadelphia Inquirer about the testing of prototype balls that go 15 and 25 yards less far are right in line with it.

Vernon's report mentioned the USGA was looking at what was referred to as "spin generation" and I assume the proposed groove reg change is essentially a result of that.

Veronon's report also mentioned they were looking at "the Ball" and in that context he mentioned the USGA had asked the manufacturers to submit prototype golf balls that went 15 and 25 yards less far, and that those prototype balls would be studied and tested (including field testing amongst player levels).

Since the USGA has asked for those prototype golf balls to study and the manufacturers have submitted them and they are apparently under the study and testing that Vernon mentioned it would not surprise me to see the USGA/R&A propose some I&B rule and reg changes on the golf ball within a year.

I have no idea if it has any meaning but I recall in Vernon's report that "spin generation" was listed first and "The Ball" was listed second. Perhaps they are taking it in that order.