"Excessive golf ball distance has also had significant adverse affects as regards golf’s architectural and cultural heritage."

The Telegraph published a letter from select architects and writers calling on the R&A to do something about distance race via the golf ball. Heroes I say!

* The greater length that the ball travels has created a demand for longer golf courses. The increased acreage required for new golf courses has amplified the environmental impact of golf course construction and maintenance, with greater inputs of fuel, fertilizers, pesticides and water required.

* Increased golf ball distance has increased the danger golfers, greenkeepers and the public face. On the same angles of dispersion, golf balls travel a greater distance, creating safety problems on and around old golf courses and the need for greater safety margins on new golf courses.

* Land is one of the most important factors for the creation of new golf courses. As the next wave of golf course construction will be in the developing and highly populated world, excessive golf ball distance is a barrier to actual and responsible golf course development. The extra need for environmentally sensitive materials along with greater quantities of capital and labour for golf course development and maintenance greatly increases the cost of golf.

* The extra distance walked on long courses forces up the average time per round. Four and five hour rounds are driving many potential golfers away from the game.

* In total, the excessive length the golf ball now travels directly challenges the future development and sustainability of golf.

* This says nothing of the architectural values of our classic courses, denuded by golf ball length just as the famous Road Hole has demonstrated.

These negative length factors were highlighted during the recently held World Forum of Golf Architects in St. Andrews. A vast majority of the 180 delegates were in favour of further rectifying steps to be taken, beyond the ‘v’ groove changes then reported by the R&A and USGA representatives.

So little patience with the groove rule change! Here, here!

The undersigned believe this is the right time for the golf community (i.e. players, golf architects, course owners, tournament spectators and playing equipment manufacturers) to give our ruling bodies full support for ball and equipment measures that will help make golf sustainable and flourish in the 21st century. We believe measures should be taken to ‘roll back the ball’!

Signed:
    •    Peter Nordwall FSGA, President of FSGA (Federation of Scandinavian Golf Course Architects)
    •    Graham Papworth SAGCA, President of the SAGCA (Society of Australian Golf Course Architects)
    •    Ken and TK Sato JSGCA, Board Members of JSGCA (Japanese Society of Golf Course Architects)
    •    Jonathan Gaunt EIGCA, Senior Member and Nick Norton EIGCA Graduate (European Institute of Golf Course Architects)
    •    David McLay Kidd, Principal of DMK Golf Design
    •    James I Kidd, Director of DMK Golf Design
    •    Donald Steel, Past President of British Association of Golf Course Architects, Association of Golf Writers and English Golf Union
    •    Malcolm Campbell, Golf Writer & Chairman of the Links Association
    •    Hurdzan Fry, Environmental Golf Design

“I suggested to (R&A chief executive) Peter Dawson yesterday maybe we should introduce some kind of scheme along the lines of that which we have with historic buildings in this country,”

Tony Jimenez tells us about Paul Casey pulling aside R&A secretary Peter Dawson with a little advice to prevent the Wentworthization of classic courses by giving them the same status as listed historic buildings.

“I suggested to (R&A chief executive) Peter Dawson yesterday maybe we should introduce some kind of scheme along the lines of that which we have with historic buildings in this country,” Casey told reporters on the eve of the PGA Championship.

“(For instance) Ernie’s beautiful house by the 16th hole with the thatched roof and the (superb) plaster work. He owns it but that doesn’t give him the right to paint it pink and put a tin roof on it.

“When you’re an owner of a Grade II listed building it’s much like you’re the caretaker for the next generation… (similarly) if you’re the owner of a golf course does it give you the right to make the changes you want?

“Is that in the best interests of that particular course or for golf in general?”, added the world number eight.

The Briton went on to suggest the rule-making R&A could play a role in protecting venues.

Uh Paul...don't go there.

“I think we need to keep courses in as good a condition as we can… but maybe (owners) need to go through a procedure to make sure these changes are in line,” said the 32-year-old.

“Maybe that’s something that would have to go through the R&A… along the lines of listing golf courses.”

Okay just one question for Casey. Was Peter Dawson nervously twitching, sweating or otherwise behaving oddly as you told him this?

Just curious. After all, he's going around to the Open venues and...altering them!

Somehow I'm guessing the irony was lost on young Paul, but he gets major points for a wonderful idea. He's just talking to the wrong folks.

"We'd be foolish not to consider it, although it is extremely controversial."

E. Michael Johnson raises all sorts of interesting questions in considering whether manufacturers should offer non-conforming lines of equipment. 

"We've looked extensively at possibilities in the nonconforming category," said Nate Radcliffe, metalwoods development manager for Cleveland Golf. "We'd be foolish not to consider it, although it is extremely controversial."

It's a category?

Now, 10 years later, might Callaway revisit nonconforming clubs? "Some think we may be likely to go down that path," said Dr. Alan Hocknell, Callaway's senior VP of research & development, "but one thing we hold highly at this company is authenticity. Playing by the rules is perhaps the most authentic part of golf. I'd say we're more likely to stay inside the rules than go outside them."

Which isn't to say Callaway hasn't looked at the landscape. Hocknell said the company has done consumer research and found golfers split on the topic. Then there's the business aspect. Any company entering the nonconforming arena is likely to be branded by its competition as making clubs for cheaters. "To have our brand positioned that way would be a huge risk," said Hocknell.

Two questions. Do you think this is a good idea for the game and would it be wise for manufacturers to go down this path?

It doesn't bother me much since the game is bifurcated with the groove rule change and if nothing else, just think, we wouldn't have to listen to the manufacturers whine about the big, bad USGA impacting quarterly profit margins!

"This (new grooves rule) isn’t going to wipe the mustard off their red, white and blue ties or brush the dandruff off their navy blue sport coats. They are not living up to their responsibility."

Randall Mell posts an entertaining Q&A with Tom Weiskopf on a variety of topics ranging from Torrey Pines to his possible return to the booth at the Open Championship again. But he didn't hold back on the topic of the new groove rule.

I don’t know if the V-groove definition today is identical to the V grooves I played with in the 60s, 70s and 80s. But it is a copout, in my estimation. They aren’t addressing the problem. It is a way for the USGA to get around the ball issue. They lost that groove ruling (to Ping) in court. The USGA and the R&A have a responsibility to protect the skills of the game that the players possess. It’s in their rule book. Consequently, they are definitely afraid of another lawsuit. The major issue is the golf ball. It goes too far. They won’t address that because if they go to court they’ll lose it.

Do you think the USGA and R&A are living up to their responsibilities?
 
No, I don’t think so. What happened was their technology wasn’t as good as the manufacturers. So the manufacturers turned the definition of rules concerning equipment to the finest line they could. It got away from the USGA and R&A. The ball got away from them. I could go on and talk about this, which I have.
 
The ball is still the issue. It’s the No. 1 component and element of the game that’s transformed scoring since the feathery golf ball. Go through time, it’s been the golf ball. This (new grooves rule) isn’t going to wipe the mustard off their red, white and blue ties or brush the dandruff off their navy blue sport coats. They are not living up to their responsibility. They are afraid of a lawsuit.
 
Let’s get a tournament ball, every manufacturer can make it and let’s go on with life. Then we won’t have to build these golf courses that are 7,500 or 7,600 yards where nobody but the best who play the game can play them. They’ve eliminated so many classic golf courses from competition.

USGA/R&A: You Can Keep Your Silly Little Distance Measuring Device

Though I'm not sure about this clarification on GPS-enabled phones/PDA's:

3.     Multi-functional devices such as mobile phones, PDAs, etc (i.e., devices that are primarily communication devices, but which may have other potential uses) may be used as follows:

·         The device may be used for any non-golfing purpose (e.g., as a communication tool to phone, text or email), subject to any club/course regulations and the rules on accessing advice-related matters – see Decision 14-3/16.

·         When the local rule is in effect, a distance-measuring application may be used, provided the specific application is restricted to “distance only” and the device does not have any other “non-conforming” features. This is the case even if these other features are not being used. As above, the rules on advice-related communications (including the use of the internet) still apply.

So this rules out the new iphone GPS app when the local rule is in effect?