Monday
09Jul
Letter From Saugerties--July 10, 2007
Former USGA Executive Director Frank Hannigan sends another of his thoughtful letters, this time he's reacting to the recent USGA staff firings spearheaded by Walter Driver and rubber-stamped by the Executive Committee. Hannigan tells us what they mean for the organization and the game.
Dear Geoff:
I can’t convince you, because of your youth, there was a time when the USGA was generally regarded as the most effective, efficient and logical body of sports in this country. When I was chief operating officer of the USGA and feeling sour about something we’d done I would turn my mind to the US Tennis Association and immediately perk up.
Alas, I agree with your low estimation of today’s USGA which is no better than the USTA, the NCAA, the AAU, the US Olympic Committee or, I suppose, Vince McMahon’s World Wrestling Federation.
The barrage of media criticism of president Walter Driver is both unprecedented and deserved. It’s also simplistic. The USGA began to behave strangely more than 10 years ago. The greatest failure was to pull back from what would have been a stupendous conflict had the organization attempted to do the right thing about distance.
Knowing full well that they should have risked the farm with anti-distance legislation, they instead have announced a ban on U grooves starting in 2009, saying that the game has been totally changed by grooves so that there is no longer any correlation between accuracy on the Tour and success. This they say in a year when Fred Funk, Scotty Verplank, Paul Goydos and Zach Johnson are gobbling up tour titles, not to mention the Masters. All bunters.
Internally, the USGA is grim. President Driver has ousted two senior staff members. The first was Tim Moraghan, a specialized agronomist who worked with the superintendents at championship courses. The second, not yet formally announced, is Marty Parkes, the USGA’s long time director of communications. Parkes was #4 on what has become a perhaps too large staff of more than 300.
The firings, of course, are termed “resignations.” Both of those leaving accepted bonus packages including a provision they would not speak ill of the USGA or talk about their separations. I find that a very sleazy way for a public entity to act. The USGA insists on its privacy, which it legally holds, but it has no problem avoiding federal taxes. It even accepts 501c3 status as a “charity” which means that volunteers like Driver can deduct their USGA expenses.
Moraghan, I would say, has been fired retroactively for whatever part he played in the course debacle of the 2004 US Open at Shinnecock Hills. Driver was then chairman of the championship committee and had to endure humiliation.
Marty Parkes is gone, as I and others see it, because he could not prohibit negative print media and blog stories (like this) about Driver. There was the notorious Golf World magazine cover story headed “Can the USGA Survive Walter Driver?” But then Washington Post golf writer Len Shapiro labeled Driver “the most disliked USGA president ever.” Driver’s partners at Goldman Sachs do not know what Golf World is, but they are certainly cognizant of the Washington Post.
You would think Driver, having a major post in what is likely the world’s most successful financial concern, would know a bit about money. Instead, he has a strange idea about the USGA being endangered financially. He points out that the USGA “lost” $6 million in operations in 2006 and has budgeted a $5 million loss for 2007. The 2006 “loss” was the first in the history of the USGA, which commenced in 1895. It was also the first year of Driver’s two as president.
Meanwhile, the USGA investments have a street value close to $300 million. Even a financial ignoramus like myself could churn $15 million or more out of that without going near the principle. The “loss” he’s talking about does not take into account the growth in value of the investments.
He says the USGA, were it a business, would be in big time trouble. Excuse me, but the USGA is NOT a business. It is a non-profit service organization. The American Cancer Society would be in trouble as a “business.”
He points to the fragility of the USGA’s television income, which is hidden but likely pushing $25 million a year. The contract with NBC runs through 2014. President Driver says who can possibly tell what will happen with TV money after 2014. Nobody, can. But you know what? If it’s so scary the USGA could easily get an extension of its NBC contract right now, especially after the success of the Open at Oakmont.
Marty Parkes is after my USGA time, which ended in 1989. I have had no professional dealings with him, but we were cordial when I ran into him. As is my want, I would tease him by saying one expected more of a graduate of the London School of Economics than being a USGA publicist. I read him as being an exceptional manager of projects and people but uncomfortable cozying up to golf media giants.
The USGA set-up is truly strange. It gives complete power and authority to its volunteer executive committee of 15. The president is labeled in the by-laws as chief executive officer but his powers are limited to presiding over meetings and appointing the members of the many sub committees. He can’t even hire, that power being given to the executive committee as a whole. (The by-laws say the committee can hire “clerks.”).
Parkes may also have been fired because when Driver and his colleagues slashed staff benefits in January, Parkes sent an email to Driver asking for or demanding an explanation. This caused Driver to fly to New Jersey from Atlanta and address a surly staff.
This must be said for Driver. He did not use the USGA’s leased jet when he flew to Newark for this meeting. (He correctly notes that he inherited the jet program from his predecessor Fred Ridley-- which is not the same as saying he could cancel it in these financially perilous days.) You will search in vain in the USGA financial statement for a line item about the jet or for that matter the cost of entertaining members of the executive committee and their wives at championships, where they are not needed. For the staff, which can truly run golf tournaments, these people are heavy maintenance.
Since Driver does not have the kind of power a corporate CEO has it follows he must have the approval and backing of the executive committee. What are they thinking? I think they are thinking about getting re-appointed.
How about executive director David Fay, who followed me in that role? I have no idea where he is at. It’s easy for me to say 16 years after the fact, but if the executive committee ordered me to fire someone from what I regarded as MY staff, I would have reacted by saying you can fire anybody you want but that means I go too.
For all I know, David may have fought heroically to save Marty Parkes, and was central in a negotiating process (Marty wisely had got himself a lawyer) whereby Marty got out with an excellent deal.
The USGA is now a grim place. Nobody thinks that Driver & Co. are finished firing.
I wonder how much it matters save for the exercise of egos. The USGA is a service entity with a mix of components. It does not follow that terrible leadership causes these to fall apart. Example: two years ago my up-state club, 9 holes, was visited by a USGA agronomist. He too was after my time. I purposely stayed away on the day of his visit but the club people sent me a copy of his written report. It wasn’t just good. It was superb. The recommendations were followed and resulted in much better turfgrass.
I’m sure the same can be said of other USGA departments, e.g., handicapping and perhaps management of the Rules of Golf. (The USGA, if known at all to casual golfers, is understood to be the US Open and Rules of Golf. Many people think I worked 28 years for the “PGA”.)
There is no provision for impeachment. By tradition, Driver will be gone in six months. I have been saying for years that the USGA is badly in need of an infusion of democratic procedure. There needs to be a contested election. It doesn’t happen because the average golfer cares only his futile attempt to make a good swing.
The decline of the USGA did not begin with Walter Driver. I would label it as beginning in 1995 when one of Driver’s predecessors hired Kenny Rogers for $30,000 to sing at a USGA birthday party.
Kenny Rogers is as appropriate for the USGA as Jenna Jameson would be at a conclave of the College of Cardinals.
Frank Hannigan
Saugerties, New York
For some past letters from Hannigan, check here.
Monday, July 9, 2007 at 10:31 PM
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (52)
I worked closely on many occasions with Marty Parkes and found him to be enthusiastic, competent and articulate.
And quite genuine, not an attribute shared with most of the XB.
4p
Wow, great stuff. Thanks...
" the average golfer cares only his futile attempt to make a good swing. "
Maybe so, but where is the evidence that the USGA cares much about the average golfer?
That is great stuff. I have no way of knowing whether his comments about the great effectiveness and efficiency of the USGA in his day are valid--I'm too young--but his comments do more than anything I've read to convince me that the modern concerns and criticisms about the modern USGA are on the mark.
And there are obviously more problems with the USGA than equipment issues. I know everyone is upset about the equipment, but the other issues are far more significant. If the USGA is allowed to continue to go so far adrift of its mission--becoming a corporate type entity rather than a non-profit, service organization, the game is left without a guardian. Or, the guardianship is sold to the highest bidder. The importance of this dwarfs anything about 330 yard drives. But since he mentioned distance...
I still say (as Geoff rolls his eyes) that the genesis of the distance explosion goes back to Hannigan and Thomas. The decision to set the ODS in a way that legalized the solid core distance balls created bifurcation and set the stage to allow the eventual development of the urethane top flite. Yes, there are other things the USGA could have done in the interim to control distance, as well (spring like effect, club head size, etc.). But the precedent was set with the ball in the 1970s, IMHO.
It's also interesting that he singles out the victories of Verplank, Johnson, et al (the "bunters") as evidence that accuracy is still important in the game. I agree with him. But don't these players also provide evidence that distance has not taken over the game?
Possible rule changes: V-grooves, restricted flight ball, and 10 club limit, all as _conditions of competition._ Then get some of those super smart scientists to come up with a way to modify the handicap system to adjust for these, and we're on our way (if you can come up with course ratings and slope in order to account for vast differences in course difficulty, would it be so hard to come up with a decent adjustment for a restricted flight ball?).
Second, how much blame can be placed on Frank and his staff for failure to recognize advances in technology that led to huge drivers made out of things other than a certain kind of wood? The Big Bertha came out in 1991, after all.
86 mentions the Hannigan-era failure to recognize ball distances, but I still think it's not as much about the ball as it is about clubhead speed, and larger drivers with longer, lighter shafts contribute to that (as does fitness). 13 MPH increase in swing speed since 1987 is 30+ yards, independent of the ball.
Despite those two nits, I agree with the general tone and feeling expressed here: the USGA is adrift and needs a strong personality with good ideas to set them straight. Who's the leading candidate for the new presidency in six months?
My point about the ball concerns not only the _distance_ of the ball, but the fact that they essentially sanctioned a bifurcated rule structure with the ODS. I know some may not see it this way, but it's clearly what they did, and Driver's comments in the Golf World article support this.
They basically said back then that it was ok for amateurs to play a distance ball. Now that pros have decided to take advantage of all the distance technology, some people want to take it away from everybody.
I know the USGA probably simply doesn't want to mess with the legal issues, but I'd like to think there is at least a sliver of possibility that they are thinking about recreational golfers, too.
I am pleased that Hannigan squarely places blame where it is due on Driver (USGA finances, morale and the future of regulations) and at the same time absolves Driver of what was clearly not his doing (jets, missing the boat on driver head sizes and balls 10 years ago, etc.)
Frank has touched on it in past letters, but it bears repeating; there are 15 members of the Executive Committee, and they collectively enjoy great power if they care to exert it. They need not bow to Walter Driver's executive prerogatives if they chose not to. (Not that I believe that Walter Driver's executive prerogatives are the bogeymen that some think they are.)
The USGA began its life as a collection of golf clubs, and it seems to me that a considerable coalition of such clubs could begin to retake the membership of the Executive Committe. Frank Hannigan laid out one plan in his procedural "rump slate" idea some months ago. I hope that his idea gets more traction in the very near future.
Thank you, Frank Hanigan, and thank you Geoff for providing Frank with this cyber-space for his writing.
"It's also interesting that he singles out the victories of Verplank, Johnson, et al (the "bunters") as evidence that accuracy is still important in the game. I agree with him. But don't these players also provide evidence that distance has not taken over the game?"
...it is perhaps true, but also beside the point. I have never liked the argument that we need to control (or not control) equipment technology based on who is doing the winning on the PGA Tour. And, in fairness to Frank Hannigan, I am not sure that he thinks it is an important argument, either. The reason it comes up at all is because of the phony, convoluted theory that the USGA itself has advanced about the precieved need to control grooves and spin. Hannigan, as I read him, was just trying to turn that argument around.
The real, serious, irrefutable point is this; ALL the players, taken as a group, are now so long, thanks to equipment technology, that they obviate/obsolete the features of the golf courses.
It bears repeating -- again and again and again and again -- the battle over golf equipment technology ought not to be about who is winning or losing on tour. It ought to be about how equipment is overwhelming the most valuable, most irreplaceable physical element in the game of golf. That is, the golf courses themselves. And while it may be possible to argue all night long about who is winning on tour and why they might be winning, it is not possible to argue that golf equipment technology is allowing elite players to dominate and overwhlem older golf courses.
As for the obviously failed attempts by this organization to be a protector of the game, the distance debacle -- long-chronicled on this blog -- began long before Walter Driver, and the two Franks (Hannigan and Thomas) cannot escape their fair share of the blame. Fear of being sued should not be the basis for decision-making, especially if the decisions to be made are for the betterment of the game. If you're going to be sued, hire better lawyers to defend yourself, and let Leonard Decof beware.
Kudos to Mr. Hannigan for speaking out, whatever his motivation. I hope he doesn't mind his picture appearing on Walter's dartboard.
To expand -- the USGA began its life as a project of C.B. MacDonald and his friends, who wanted to establish an American governing body of golf, and in structure it was a conglomeration of representatives of Shinnecock, NGL, St. Andrews (NY), The Country Club (Brookline), Newport, and Chicago GC. Those six clubs were the charter members.
Interestingly, all six clubs would now rightly consider themselves threatened and victimized, in terms of hosting elite championship play, by the distances now produced by equipment technology. Add to the list such threatened properties as Merion, Oakland Hills, Riviera, Maidstone, etc., multiply it by 100 or 1000, and you have the makings of a real revolution.
Indeed, this was always the weird thing to me about intrmueral debates within the USGA. The organization is routinely, and perhaps inaccurately, supposed to be ruled by a bunch of bluebloods from old-line prestige golf clubs. I kind of wish that were actually true. Those old clubs are the ones most in need of protection from equipment technology. The members of those old clubs have been widely thought of as the backbone of the USGA for decades.
Maybe we should now understand that the "backbone" of the USGA is actually a television contract with NBC, and that NBC's advertisers, and Acushnet's corporate lawyers, are the real forces controlling the game. Not some effete bluebloods.
Anyway, chosing between the two on the merits, I really prefer the bluebloods.
Let's not get away from the real import of Hannigan's letter. The rot at the USGA is a governance problem of which Driver is the symptom. They need to:
1. Change the role of the president. To be honest, I don't understand its existence as structured AT ALL. The executive director, David Fay, should report to the ex comm. There's no need for a president at all, certainly not as structured currently.
2. Change the structure of the ex comm. I don't know if Hannigan is right or not about its size; however, it needs to play a strong *oversight* role as any board would; however this oversight needs to be at the committee level and commensurate with the USGA's disparate roles played in American golf. To do this job, it needs proper expertise; it should not be a board of rich lawyers only. It also needs to reflect its mission, which is the next point...
3. Focus their mission statement. Why do they exist? How will they know when they are succeeding? I would imagine one reason they are drifting is their panoply of roles, responsibilities, etc. This thing looks like a hydra. Walter Driver appears to have latched onto "business" as a metaphor, a lens, through which he can focus the organization. This reflects his lack of understanding / experience in the nonprofit world.
There are plenty of successful governance models out there; the USGA should hire a consultant experienced in the nonprofit world. To be honest, they would do well to study the lessons of the Guggenheim on the positive side -- before they become the next American Red Cross or Smithsonian on the negative side.
"It bears repeating -- again and again and again and again -- the battle over golf equipment technology ought not to be about who is winning or losing on tour. It ought to be about how equipment is overwhelming the most valuable, most irreplaceable physical element in the game of golf. That is, the golf courses themselves."--Chuck
And I'll say, again, that the golf courses are not irreplaceable. (The "overwhelming" part of the argument isn't much better, but I'm not going there.) They aren't irreplaceable, because they've been replaced, over and over, as long as we've had golf. As Mike Johnson said over at Golf Digest, part of the thrill of golf architecture is finding the next masterpiece. Many here are traditionalists to the point of being curmudgeons about these issues, but I don't believe any golf course is sacred or that we have to jump through hoops to make sure a certain course can stay relevant while remaining fossilized in its 1952 form.
I admit...you can apply the "slippery slope" argument and say that if all this distance is ok, why not make the ball 70 yards longer? You could reach a point where there wouldn't be enough land to build a decent golf course. Repeated, spiraling inflation could create a golf scenario not unlike the price of bread in Argentina doubling every day during their inflationary debacle years ago.
Yes, there has to be a limit. Yes, we've had some rough years, requiring some adjustments, bringing us closer to the limit. But no, I don't believe we've crossed the line.
Many do, including some who I acknowledge as having far better golf "credentials" than I. But we can still debate it, and I won't stop, as long as I can.
When you look at the history of USGA rulings, or lack of, on balls and clubs in the last 20 years, it seems that they are willing to protect the "integrity" of the game, but only within fairly narrow limits defined by expediency. They're all guilty of this, from Hannigan/Thomas to Fay/Rugge. They have been worried about legal battles, for sure, and with the ball in the 1970s sort of sanctioned a bifurcated system, thinking maybe that pros would never use distance balls. Well guess what...
Chuck, the USGA may have been formed by golf clubs--the only golf entities in existence at the time, probably--but the game is much broader now, and there are more constituents to represent than the members of Oakland Hills and Maidstone. Most of the people who argue for the distance rollback seem to casually and with a bit of hubris dismiss the concerns of average recreational golfers. We (the average golf blokes) are told that, despite what we might think, the equipment doesn't really help us, or is irrelevant, or that we just don't understand what's most important to the game. I don't think that's fair.
But as to the general point of the USGA's aimless drifting and ethically questionable management and priorities, I will say that Geoff's relentless exposing of them has had a big effect on how I look at things.
the distance thing, by the way, also affects amateur play at every club
it affects the design and redesign, and redesign yet again of many golf courses, including tees, bunkers and greens on re-designs
hundreds of millions of dollars are spent for additional course re-design work and also additional maintenance, and now longer courses......all this for what is now basically a dollar ball or a $3 ball if you buy top-line stuff.
not sure if you watch the young kids, but the young kids, in every town, at every course, pound it very, very far
True. Not once, but twice, I think he finished second...
;-)
There are of course many different questions, and many different answers in the golf ball debate. But it remains that for most of your "average golf blokes," the existence of, and any changes required of, the Pro V1 are a great irrelevancy. Because the average blokes don't buy them, and don't use them. So that ends one of the great concerns right there. If new regulations forced the complete re-configuration of urethane balls like the Pro V1, most golfers WOULD NEVER KNOW THE DIFFERENCE!
Beyond that, let's dabble in the hypothetical. What if new golf ball regulations resulted in your losing 10 yards on your drives, and resulted in tour players losing 25 yards on their drives? Would you think that a bad thing? In absolute terms, you won't hit the ball as far. But you will be significantly CLOSER to the game that Tiger, Vijay, Mickelson & Co. play. Wouldn't that be a good thing? If you were dissatisfied with your relative length, you could move up one set of tees. (That is so much easier than BUILDING a new set of tees for the big boys.) But in any event, we would know that there'd be no reason to abandon places like the Old Course at St. Andrews.
When people like Michael Johnson imply that more distance is a good thing, the question is, "Why? Why is it a good thing? Who benefits? How do they benefit?"
Because I don't think that I really benefit by equipment that helps me hit 300-yard drives, if it also helps PGA Tour players hit 400-yard drives, and in the process limits championship golf to places like the 8,000-yard TPC at Viagra Highlands...
You said: "for most of your "average golf blokes," the existence of, and any changes required of, the Pro V1 are a great irrelevancy. Because the average blokes don't buy them, and don't use them. So that ends one of the great concerns right there. If new regulations forced the complete re-configuration of urethane balls like the Pro V1, most golfers WOULD NEVER KNOW THE DIFFERENCE!"
Not exactly. First of all, 30% of recreational golfers play top shelf urethane balls. That isn't a small number. Second, you can't force re-configuration of the urethane balls only. Why not? Because if you did, they would just come up with another material that would do the same thing. So if you roll back the ProV1, you also must roll back the NXT, and the HX Hot, et al.
What you really are suggesting is that we can go back 30 years and have a bifurcated system with restricted flight premium balls and bombs away hacker surlyn, but it's not possible anymore. The only reason it was possible in the past was that the pros _chose_ to play the shorter balls. It was voluntary.
The only way to roll the ball back now is to re-write or re-interpret the ODS, and all balls will be effected.
But there's always _legalized_ bifurcation as an option.
As for your hypothetical, well of course, if my game were really closer to the pro game that would be good, I guess, but I don't think it would happen in reality. Let's say Tiger's normal drive is 305. If he loses the 25 yards you mention, that's about 8%. If my drive goes 245 and I lose the same percentage, I lose about 20 yards, not 10. For a player with a slower swing who hits it 215, he still loses about 17 yards, not the 10 you suggest. Those are accurate numbers for me (I've measured at least 30 of my drives this season using a GPS in various wind conditions and slopes, and it's a good average), and probably Tiger.
Not trying to nit-pick numbers, but I'm discussing it because your hypothetical taps into a myth about the current distance technology. It is a myth to believe that the distance technology benefits high swing speed players proportionally more than slower swingers. It doesn't. The USGA studied this, and has proven it. In fact, the faster you swing, the _less_ you get out of it, as the higher swing speeds get less COR from the ball and slow down a bit more because of aerodynamic forces (I am sure USBA and Mike and others will now come out of the woodwork trying to argue this--UNCLE!!!).
"the 8,000-yard TPC at Viagra Highlands..." Good one--LOL
Sort of joining in on an above point:
To what end? What is the point of changing a golf course if it was a good course to begin with? The way you state it, "fossilized" seems to imply that there is something inherently wrong with an older course, simply because it's old, or from a certain time. I know that's not what you're saying exactly.
I mean, what is the purpose of changing a golf course by adding, let's say, 500 yards to it, simply to accomodate a ball/460cc 46" driver combo that gives you an extra 500/18 yards per hole?
That's the crux of it in the distance debate. It's that relativity. A 200 yard drive on a 400 yard hole is the same thing as a 400 yard drive on an 800 yard hole, (obviously that's just a mathematical model, since driver distance increases more than iron distance, but you get the idea.)
In the end, has anybody come up with an argument for increasing or maintaining the current standards based on anything other than "free-enterprise"?
As a former USGA employee that has since moved on, I can see why the benefit cuts have upset the usual peaceful atmosphere. Most employees make quite a bit below the average salary at their position. The benefit package is generous which is a major reason most employees settle for less. That and the fact that most of the folks working there like myself are huge fans of golf.
The upper level folks are well taken care of with cars, computers jets and a salary that a cut in benefits won’t really affect. To everyone else it’s a major pay cut in a 2 to 3% raise world.
I can’t even blame the executive committee members for not understanding this. These blue bloods have no reason to associate or even talk to their support staff. If they ever had to work for below average wages, they no longer remember how hard it is to live in New Jersey. They just don’t understand how things really are. They can have ten-thousand charity events letting children play golf, but it still would be a shame that their average employee’s kids can’t to afford to play a round themselves. There truly is a ruling elite class in golf. The USGA is the perfect example of this.
If only a few perks rolled down hill, I’m sure I wouldn’t be reading all the bashing going on. It is a nice place to work with great people. I can’t help but smile though knowing I made the right choice the move on. A nice working atmosphere alone doesn’t feed a family of four.
Titleist has been the #1 ball in golf for a long time (to borrow their phrase). They were #1 back in 1985, 1990, 1995, 2000, and all the years in between, as well as many before and after.
Should the ball (stupidly, IMHO, but I'll leave it at that) be rolled back, Titleist will likely remain the #1 ball in golf. They'll sell just as many, and if what many of you seem to suggest - that golf will be more "fun" or "playable" again is true - they may in fact sell more.
Heck, the simple fact that Titleist was the #1 ball in golf during the earlier eras of balata and the early non-balata type balls (like the Professional) may in fact give them an edge. They still have the research, the know-how, and the patents from the 1980s and 1990s. They know how to make a "rolled back" ball better than anyone. Acushnet may, in fact, _benefit_ from a roll-back.
I have no way of knowing how Acushnet really feels about all this, but the above makes sense to me and a few others I've mentioned it to.
One side note to Chuck: you say I can just move up a set of tees if I am unhappy with my distance. Isn't much of what has gone on in professional golf simply the pros being "moved back"? If we make the ball shorter, and the pros move up a tee again (or stay where they are), why would their mentality change? It seems to me they'd still play bomb and gouge, and that's why I think the groove proposal has some merit. The central concept in "bomb and gouge" is "I'd rather hit wedge from the rough than 8-iron from the fairway." If we change that central concept, does that not change the entire mentality?
As for picking on urethane balls, here is my point; if we needed to ban urethane to get the desired result, that would be fine with me. I never presumed that such a ban would ever happen. If the ODS were rewritten, that too would be fine with me. That probably should happen.
I am interested in this aspect of the hypothetical; are you doubting that it would be a good idea for there to be a rollback that trimmed you and me by 10 yards and trimmed Tiger Woods by 25 yards, if it could be done? Or are you saying that it is an acceptable idea, just not technologically possible? Because I don't think that the latter notion is valid. I do presume that it would be possible for the ODS to be adjusted, perhaps in combination with other performance parameters (weight, aerodynamics, spin, compression, etc.) so that such a result would be obtained.
It may in fact be that such a scenario hasn't been "shown" in whatever secret and mysterious testing went into the Dick Rugge "Distance Myths" memo. That is to say, it wasn't shown in testing of current commercial balls. But that isn't to say that it is a physical impossibility. You see, unlike you, I don't necessarily foresee a straight, linear percetage reduction at all swing speeds. That's not how the Pro V1 got to be the preeminent ball. It wasn't just hotter and longer; it provided a new range of performance features for elite players. And consequently, the way to kill the Pro V1 may not be a simple rollback in the ODS standard, although that is what Frank Hannigan has suggested, and neither you or I can say that such a simple, one-dimensional rollback would necessarily produce, in actual play, the kind of 8% rollback among all players with all swingspeeds at all levels.
As for defeating "the Bomb and Gouge mentality," I'd like to let proper golf course architecture do that. The problem with distance-producing technology advances has been that they obviate so much of golf course architecture. That is the heart of the problem!
Yes, there is a spin component as well, with ever-lower-spinning balls. And when it comes to spin and grooves, I have been an agnostic to a great extent. If the USGA can make a good case for banning square grooves, I will listen. But what infuriates me is the argument that the way to control ever-growing driver distances is by controlling wedge-spin. That is like saying that the way to control driver distance is to grow thick rough.
The way to control distance is to CONTOL DISTANCE.
Now, if the net result of a new USGA regulation on grooves is that overnight, tour players demand that the Titleist Tour Reps give them much higher-spinning balls, and they all re-tool themselves to hit much more controlled, spinning drivers that travel 20 yards shorter, then I'll be the first to congratulate Rugge and his staff. But I don't expect that to happen, largely because Rugge and the USGA have given us no reason to expect it will happen. They keep right on talking about correlations between "fairways hit percentages" versus success on tour. That tells me that they are more concerned about a style of play (or maybe about an Acushnet lawsuit) than about preserving golf courses.
And let's face it; when it comes to defacing good old golf courses, the USGA is pretty much a ringleader. Any older course hoping to host a USGA championship is going to be told how long it needs to be. That's L-O-N-G.
And the wants and the needs of a woman your age - Ruby I realize.
Kenny is always appropriate.
At this point, as I understand it, the 8i does NOT offer the advantage that the current wedge does. So a shortened ball would help swing the pendulum back from power towards accuracy. Distance/power will always offer a significant advantage, but at the moment the balance is way out of whack.
They've already moved back. What's done is done. In trying to pick on this small thing, you missed the grander point I was attempting to make with that paragraph regarding the proposed groove regulations.
Golf course architecture hasn't solved Bomb and Gouge. Certainly classic courses aren't really set up for it. Look at how Augusta has bastardized its course in the interests of "solving" this perceived problem.
You say "The way to control distance is to CONTOL DISTANCE." Guess what? The USGA already controls distance. It has for decades, and it's called the ODS, or Overall Distance Standard. All balls pros play adhere to it.
I'm talking about curing the mentality and style of play known as Bomb and Gouge. Distance, again, is already "controlled." Regulated, anyway. The mentality is what the USGA seems to be going after.
Smol, finally, I think you read too much about the "BAM" core in golf balls. It's a myth. Faster swing speeds don't get some magical boost. In fact, the law of limiting returns kicks in (slightly, but still, it's there). "Fair" would be linear - faster swingers actually lose out slightly. The highest ratio of "swing speed to drive distance" is not at 135 MPH - it's well, well under that (like 105 or something).
Regarding the "need" for classic courses to stretch themselves perpetually to keep up with distance: For whom are they doing this? For their members? (And we are talking about private clubs for the most part -- many of them EXTREMELY private clubs.) Have the collective handicaps been plummeting over the last several years? Is the game on those courses getting too easy? Or is this out of fear that some young hotshot might come along and shoot 64 one day? Well, so what if he does? Yes, some classic courses can probably no longer be used for top-flight championship play. So what? Does this make them less great for the 99%+ of golfers who can't overpower them?
Look at that group of original members of the USGA: Shinnecock, National, St. Andrews, Brookline, Newport, Chicago. Is their greatness dependent today upon hosting major championships? If a Bubba Watson or a Camillo Villegas couldn't play such courses because they'd simply overpower them, it would be their loss, not the courses'. Maybe, just maybe, we can get more pleasure out of the game than the players at the top. These courses are never going to be obsolete for us.
The highest level of championship golf isn't the tail wagging the dog, it's the very tip of the tail wagging a whole pack of dogs.
By the way, several posters today have suggested that what the USGA needs is a strong leader. Its most significant problem right now is that it has one; what it needs is a way to minimize the damage that can be done by a volunteer executive in a short-term role.
Smols, Chuck, et al. No offense, but you cannot have a reasonable discussion if people ignore facts and argue that 2 + 2 = 5. The ball does not become "activated" by high swing speeds. Short hitters "compress the core" plenty. Go to USGA.com and read the distance myth article. Chuck, there is plenty of data there, how much do you need? And stop complaining about the ball study not being out yet. It will come out, but the distance study, for what it's intended to do, is excellent. If they did nothing else but slow the core of the golf ball down today, and the balls retained all of their current properties otherwise, EVERYONE would lose about the same percentage of distance. Well, not exactly, since the people at the top of the swing speed food chain would lose fractionally _less_ distance than those at lower swing speeds.
Third...Chuck, to say the way to control distance is to control distance is essentially saying you just control symptoms and ignore causes. The way you "control" distance, if even necessary, is understand the causes, and address them. There are many causes, and we've discussed them ad nauseum, but one of them is the fact that the CLUBS are so good that modern pros swing from the heels without fear. So addressing one aspect of that--grooves--might very well work, for reasons Larry Mize has discussed.
But very good debating on all sides. It has been a good day!
Anyway, short of an overhaul of the rules on drivers, an overhual of the rules on balls seems pretty workable to me. Has anybody already purchased the balls they plan to use in 2008? 2009?
But the "blame the clubs" argument falls down exactly where the "blame the fitness and training" argument fails; nobody wants to regulate things that either can't be regulated (clubs that are already in play, although that might in fact be debatable) or would be foolish to attempt to regulate ("fitness"). For the individual golfer, the ball is the cheapest, most fungible, least consequential part of the game. (And I'd argue that the courses are the most valuable and most important element of the game. Would anyone argue the point?)
As for the kinds of golf courses that might feel "threatened," I am glad that Larry Mize raises ANGC. Would any of the widely-despised changes have been made to that golf course if the balls were not going so far?
And as for the argument that recreational players will never 'obsolete' the classic courses that we love, I accept that, but championship competitions do force bad changes on many of them, and influence the changes at many others. What I don't accept is the idea of "bifurcation." I'd rather lose distance myself than see bifurcation. I can't imagine accepting bifurcation. So as long as there is one set of rules, we have to make sure that the game that the elites play is one that fits the courses. So yeah, we DO have to tailor the rules to what that 0.01% does. By the way, I see that as a good thing, not a bad one. Doesn't everybody? Does anybody want to play a game that is different from, either juiced-up or dumbed-down, from what the elites play? I personally think that is a huge thing in golf. One of the very greatest charms in the game.
"Yeah, we DO have to tailor the rules to what that 0.01% does. By the way, I see that as a good thing, not a bad one. Doesn't everybody?"
You already know that I disagree with that statement, especially when it's put that starkly. How does everyone else feel about it? Gentlemen?
Clubs can be regulated (duh), and the clubs I will play in 2009 are not already in play. They likely haven't been made yet. The better players I know tend to switch iron sets often enough that a rules change on grooves would just serve as a justification to buy another set of irons a year early, maybe, and all the "less skilled" golfers - if the proposal is to be believed - will be grandfathered in. If you're a 10 handicapper who wants to keep his clubs for 8 more years, go ahead. If you're a scratch golfer competing in state ams, well, new irons ain't gonna break the bank.
Chuck: "As for the kinds of golf courses that might feel "threatened," I am glad that Larry Mize raises ANGC. Would any of the widely-despised changes have been made to that golf course if the balls were not going so far?"
That's putting the cart before the horse and assuming they were right in thinking they needed to change the course. St. Andrews didn't add a bunch of trees to the right side of its hole or more "rough." I seem to recall the 2005 British Open as being an interesting one nonetheless.
ANGC didn't have to make the changes. They weren't "forced" to in my opinion, and that makes the changes all the more despicable. So I disagree with something you've assumed to be true: that they HAD to do something about the course to "keep up."
Bobby Jones said of Jack Nicklaus that he "plays a game with which [he was] not familiar." Did Bobby Jones rush out and make massive changes to the course after seeing Jack Nicklaus play it a few times? Nope. If only his prudence and sensibilities carried over to the Hooties of today.
Why change the most expensive part of the game, the creation and the maintenance of courses, for a $1-$3 ball.
Why not change the equipment, ie the ball ?
Why do some continue to argue that you just need to keep lengthening the courses, moving tees, bunkers, and greens ? This is being done at many. many clubs just for the amateurs. No one wants to play a pitch and putt all the time.
Your grandsons will tire of hitting driver, wedge and move on to another game if you do not lengthen. If you do constantly lengthen courses, you are adding considerable cost to the game.
Control the equipment, rather than constantly change all the courses.
What was the single incidence that prompted ANGC to again lengthen ? It was when Phil hit to about 95 yards at No 11 in front of Hooty Johnson and Tom Fazio. Same thing happens at many many clubs.
It isn't so much the low scoring,
Larry,
They felt it was necessary to lengthen, so pros wouldn't be hitting wedges to No. 11. If wedges were the norm at No. 11, no one would ever again be where you chipped right of no. 11.
You can't blame the companies, they want to run free (grow), and you can't blame the USGA, they don't want to kill the game, they want it to grow, yet preserve it as best they can. (Could it be that we all want 'it,' but not want to let the other guy to have it? - "don't take away my distance! - just his - because his ball is going to far")
There will always be attrition when it comes to golfers entering and leaving the game. However, what is really killing it is the cost to play. Eli Callaway tested the elasticity of demand of golfers willing to purchase improvement by coming up with a driver and charging $225.00. All you old timers remember how he couldn't make them fast enough. With this the industry found that golfers will pay, and will pay a lot. Now, too many people want a piece of the action and the costs to play have risen astronomically in every facet of the game; greens fees, membership fees, equipment costs. GOLF COURSE CONDITIONING (thanks to Augusta and CBS.) Its' over the top.
As an aside, there is the thinking that is killing the game. I had a caddie the other day, a high schooler named Sean. Caddies six days a week. I asked if he played the game, he said no. I said "No? Why not? His answer, "my baseball coach told me it would hurt my baseball swing"
Perhaps the USGA should promote how, when the golfer swings a club, there are around 100 moving body parts, and thus overall body coordination will increase through playing golf. Someone mentioned looking at the causes and not the symptoms?
1. No, of course it is not a good thing to tailor the rules to the top 0.01%. It is a game, and the rules, if they require any skewing, should be done in the direction of the average player, not the freak. You make exceptions to rules or course set ups or whatever for exceptional players (the pros) and exceptional situations (national championships). We don't demand wooden bats and 90' baselines for beer league softball. Bad example, I know, but you get the idea. I think most people probably disagree with you on this, Chuck, but maybe I'm wrong about that.
2. As to the issue of replacing clubs versus the ball, etc., I step back and say that at this point the best option is really to do nothing (see below). But to debate the point, most golfers in most rounds don't play by the rules. They don't go back to the tee for OB, they don't drop properly, they take mulligans, etc. The rules apply to everyone, but are only taken seriously by serious golfers, typically those with USGA handicaps. People like this are golf enthusiasts, and most replace clubs at least every few years. I think Golf Digest did a survey, and new irons were purchased on average every 3-4 years in their survey population, and clubs like drivers and wedges a bit more often. Any equipment changes usually have long grace periods and/or grandfather clauses, so if they did decide to mandate club changes, it wouldn't be a major financial issue for the golfers who would care enough about the rules to buy new, conforming clubs.
Your arguments are based on the notion that golf courses are the primary thing, the absolute, the basis for everything. I don't see it this way.
You don't have a golf course without a game and golfers who want to play. You don't build a church without having the faithful first. I know we are very traditional and sentimental in golf, and I know how beautiful golf courses are, and I know how the history of them can give the game a deep meaning, even for someone who just hockeys it around once a week. But to treat golf courses like they are the Holy Temple and the basis around which the whole rule structure of the game is based is taking it too far.
_Golfers_ are the asset. People. Living people who play the game, both the experts and the dubs. The fun on the course, the needling, the passion, the pressure and intensity and joy and pain you can feel whether you are Tiger Woods putting for the US Open or 86general trying to sink a putt on 18 to win the bets. _That_ is what golf is about, not redan holes or church pews or the perfectly placed cross bunker or elegant surface drainage. If not, why is golf so popular on places like Hains Point and Harding Park?
Nothing stands still. The game changes. Part of the fun of any sport/game is finding out how to do it better. Over time, everyone does their part. We learn how to swing better, we make better clubs, we make better clothes, the supers grow better grass, and so on. Are people supposed to approach golf like it's some sort of sacred ritual, doing everything the same way it was done before, as if there is some sort of divine plan that says it is so? It is natural, and essential, to try to keep going forward. We have a rule structure that keeps the game within basic, essential boundaries, but also leaves room for improvement. I don't think, in the "grand scheme" of things, we've gotten adrift with equipment as everyone seems to think.
The game has always changed and evolved, and golf courses have _reacted_ to this, not caused it. You build courses to challenge the game as it exists today. That's why we don't play the Open at Prestwick anymore. Equipment changes have always supported changing playing styles at the top levels, it's just changed a bit faster in the last 15 years than it did before that. But it has always been changing and evolving.
The best thing to do about the current situation, in my opinion, is NOTHING. Distance problem? Well, all the great old championship venues have been updated by their memberships--the ones who care enough about this, anyway. These clubs are more than able to afford the changes.
Professional golf is exciting to watch today, and we have some of the greatest players ever, both male and female, doing incredible things. The game has been made either easier or at least a bit more enjoyable for average players (we can argue about the degree, but you can't seriously say that it's not easier to hit a decent golf shot with modern clubs than with 70s era stuff).
The current ODS and physics limit any significant further advances in distance. If you look at Long Drive Tour players, you can get an idea of the ceiling on distance, I think. Using overlength equipment, and having rules that require only one ball in a huge grid, the top guy on the long drive tour averages about 354 yards, last time I checked. Given all of the existing regulations, nobody is going to exceed that on a regular basis any time soon, unless the doctors come through with the old Six Million Dollar Man technology.
This is interesting, but I think Mr. Hannigan's concern -- and mine -- is that this particular group of rich, low-handicap, asshole lawyers/brokers is screwing up what really has historically been a damned good organization far worse than any preceding group of rich, low-handicap, asshole lawyers/brokers.
They are bleeding good people (and I'll bet they lose more -- particularly from the low-paid, overworked folks in the Green Section.) The distance thing is just a symptom of a much more pervasive cancer.
I've known quite a few USGA presidents and many weren't exactly rocket scientists, but they seemed to be reasonable people with a strong respect for the USGA and its role. This Driver guy is, by all accounts, a meglomaniac who wants to remake the institution in his own image. Hopefully, the pendulum will swing back with this next round of leadership (though Geoff's note about the likely successors doesn't hold out too much hope). Maybe David Fay will grow some balls at some point and actually lead (or, more likely, maybe my dog will start crapping ice cream).
At any rate, before you resume the titanium/Pro Vx debate, please take a moment to consider the plight of the many nice folks who work in Far Hills. I'm sure it's not a helluva lot of fun right now.
And of course that is why the Pro V1 is such a perversion. It makes the game easier for elite players, for whom their games are already dominating the courses they play on.
Another perversion is that the reposnses to the Pro V1 equipment era are the kinds of things that contradict what you are talking about. Harder course setups to combat distance (deeper rough, lightning greens, tucked pins, way-back tees) don't do much to make the game cheaper, less maintenance-intensive, or faster to play on a Saturday afternoon.