When you come to think of it that is the secret of most of the great holes all over the world. They all have some kind of a twist. C.B. MACDONALD
Forget Padraig, we need the rule changed on scorecard DQ's to protect the viewers at home who have been called every name in the book after the latest call-in violation.
Thankfully, most of the scribes cooled off after their initial tweets about the sheer horror of a viewer witnessing a violation and daring to point it out. They directed their emotions at the rule the USGA and R&A refuse to budge on.
After this site revealed a few details about the USGA's golf ball testing (noted by the Wall Street Journal with a USGA/Dick Rugge response), the former USGA Executive Director Frank Hannigan filed this letter in response to the news of rolled back ball testing.
You remember those "short" balls the USGA asked manufacturers to make in limited quantities about 4 years ago? They just re-surfaced at, of all places, the Canadian Tour where players are being paid by the USGA to hit the balls on days following their events. Two tests have now taken place.
The USGA, predictably, will say nothing beyond admitting tests in Canada are happening. The results will never be revealed unless there is a rules change, says USGA technical chief Dick Rugge. He also says they need to protect the "process." A "process" is measuring how far golf balls go? Please.
The USGA, which gets its funds from the public, and shamelessly accepts 501c3 tax status, has one hell of a nerve in trying to shut down a discussion of a distance rollback, the most critical issue in golf for many of its sophisticates.
The issue is what would golf feel like, be like, if the ball went--pick a number--10,15,20 yards shorter for tour players than today's ball. The point of these tests is not where the balls go, it's how the players feel about what they've done.
"Would it make any difference to you if everybody had to play the ball you used today?"
As for the outcome, you can be assured these balls have already been tested to death on the USGA's super-hip indoor driving device which, essentially, can predict the outcome of any hit. The balls were also carefully sprinkled around in exalted golf circles. Peter Dawson gave one to a low handicap friend of mine to play on The Old Course. My friend say he couldn't tell the difference.
So what's going on? Rugge is a very status quo guy, especially when it comes to his salary, which is not short. He doesn't need a fight about distance rollback while he's dealing with the consequences of his dramatic groove change this year. It was billed as a game changer. So far, on the Tour, it has changed nothing. Worse, there will come a time when amateur golfers will be asked to buy new clubs with new grooves that mean absolutely nothing.
Rugge says all players must play with the same grooves lest we have bifurcation. Really? So what about the "one ball" rule, a condition I was involved in with the USGA, which permits committees to limit players to one brand of ball throughout a round. That condition is considered essential on the PGA Tour. It is virtually never used in amateur golf. So is that bifurcation and, if so, what's wrong with it?
My wild guess is that there are members of the USGA Executive Committee who don't want to give up on the issue of distance and have ordered Rugge to do these tests so they can say that with X ball the average driving distance on the Tour would drop by 15 yards--something Rugge already knows.
I would also guess that the PGA Tour knows what's going on. The USGA and R&A can't touch equipment without the consent of the PGA Tour.
This is not a matter of science. BP could surely make a proper shorter golf ball. The matter is political with perhaps some litigation tossed in. All throughout golf, the people who know it best think the ball goes too far. At the British Open annual dinner for former champions at St. Andrews the champions beat up on the R&A about distance. The R&A listens but will do nothing.
What a deal. The people empowered to manage a game can do nothing about the game. It's as if in baseball the major leagues were forced to convert to metal bats.
Put me for every five years. After seeing that it lives up to the perfect place for a tournament, more often would be great. But I understand the need to move it around.
So much great stuff in John Huggan's profile of Tom Weiskopf, and I'm quite sure where to begin (though it's worth reading for all of the stuff beyond distance rants):
"The problem stems from the fact that the USGA lost a lawsuit with Ping over the grooves on clubs all those years ago. Now the authorities are scared to get involved in another. But they are smart people. I don't see why they can't come up with a 'tournament specification' for the ball. That wouldn't mean that the amateur couldn't play or buy that ball. It would be just like it was over here when you guys had to change from the small ball to the big ball. Or they could roll the ball back over a period of time until they reach a predetermined point.
"The saddest thing is that the ball has taken so many wonderful courses out of play for the professionals. Look at what is being done here at the Old Course, with all these tees that are not even on the premises. I don't know what the solution is, but I can't believe the R&A and USGA can't get together with the manufacturers and come up with something that is for the betterment and protection of the game and those who play it at the highest level. Maybe they should have stopped the ball as soon as it became clear that they were going to have to mess with the Old Course.
Lawrence Donegan (here) and Steve Elling (here) sum up the player complaints from Friday's second round. They fall into two categories: hole locations and suspending play.
From what I saw of the course, the holes were fairly reasonable and not cut on high spots as several players have claimed. There were undoubtedly a few very difficult locations, like the 11th, which was almost inaccessible along with the 8th and 10th on high spots. But does every hole location have to be accessible? I think not.
As for the decision to suspend play and restart in conditions that soon were just as bad as they were when play was stopped? That's a trickier proposition.
I'm not buying the "they did it for Tiger" conspiratorial venting of players who were understandably cranky about getting in their playing zone and then having to pull up, only to face the same or worse winds when they went back to the course.
The issue of green speed is certainly on the table in this debate since the greens look faster than they were in practice rounds and it takes so little to put these greens over the edge. But ultimately, this may just be about the quirkiness of the rules of golf, as Bob Harig notes.
The reason for such consternation over a golf ball that rolls is the penalty that can be incurred if you ground your club. A player who rests his putter behind a ball is deemed to have moved the ball if the wind blows it.
"I understand the rule, but it's such an unfair rule because you haven't really done anything wrong and the ball starts to roll and you incur a penalty," said Trevor Immelman, who shot 74. "That was the kind of thing you had to be careful of today."
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
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.
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!
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.
Geoff Shackelford is a Senior Writer for Golfweek magazine, a weekly contributor to Golf Channel's Morning
Copyright © 2022, Geoff Shackelford. All rights reserved.
