ShopRite Calls It Quits

Maybe I've gotten so used to tap-dancing in press releases, but it seems like this on announcing the end of the LPGA's ShopRite event (background here and here) is unusually blunt but informative:

Northfield, NJ -- The Atlantic City LPG Benefit Association today announced that it has been forced to cease operation of the ShopRite LPGA Classic, one of the longest-running events on the LPGA Tour. Tournament chairman Larry Harrison issued the following statement:

“It is with great sadness and profound regret that we take this step to discontinue the tournament, however, we were left with no choice but to do so. In July, the LPGA commissioner notified us that they were awarding our date on the Tour schedule to another tournament despite a commitment from the previous Tour leadership that our date would remain intact through at least 2008. Since that time, we have attempted to negotiate a workable date and a new contract with the LPGA, to no avail.

“In effect, there has been no true negotiation with the Tour, and no direct communication with the Tour commissioner or her staff throughout this process. Rather, the Tour, through its outside legal counsel, has simply offered a few undesirable and/or unworkable dates, of which only one was even remotely acceptable.

“During the period of time when we were working to resolve the scheduling issues, we also attempted to negotiate a new contract with the LPGA, contingent upon reaching an agreement on a new date. Again, there was no meaningful negotiation, only a ‘take it or leave it’ proposition on the part of the LPGA. To make matters worse, the LPGA imposed unrealistic deadlines for execution of the agreement and showed no willingness to try to resolve issues surrounding the contract, all of which would have made it exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to succeed going forward. In the end, and mindful of the best interests of our beneficiaries, we could not proceed with the unfavorable terms put forth by the LPGA.

“As a result, despite a 21-year record of enormous success, a total outlay of more than $16 million in purses to LPGA players, and charitable donations totaling more than $12 million to scores of worthy non-profit organizations, we find ourselves in a position whereby it is no longer feasible for us to continue with this event.

“The untenable circumstance we are confronted with was created by the leadership of the Tour, their decision to rescind our date and their unwillingness to negotiate in good faith on an alternative date and a contract.

“This is an outcome that we desperately hoped could be avoided, but, in the final analysis, it was made necessary by the decisions and actions on the part of the LPGA leadership.

“We remain deeply proud of the significant contribution we have made to the growth, success and stability of the LPGA Tour over the past 21 years, and the sizable impact we have had on so many worthy non-profit organizations. It is truly sad and unfortunate that our region has lost a high profile, world class sporting event, and that these charities will no longer be able to count on our funding.”

I'd make a joke, but this is so pathetic that there is nothing to say.

Well, actually, reader Tom, who sent this in, did point out that this, coupled with the demise of the HSBC Women's World Match Play (played at Hamilton Farm in NJ and the Sybase Classic at Wykagyl, means that under The Brand Lady's watch, the LPGA has gone from three significant events in the world's largest media market to maybe, just maybe one if the match play sticks around.

Update on 2006-10-26 15:37 by Geoff

The LPGA responds:

In a tersely worded statement Wednesday night, the LPGA challenged the accuracy of Harrison's version of events and hinted at legal action. "Harrison's statement is full of falsehoods and incorrect accounts," the LPGA statement said. "We've directed our legal counsel to contact Mr. Harrison's attorney and have him rescind the statement."

What's Growing?

While assessing my low self-esteem issues (as diagnosed by bloggers who cower under nicknames!), I keep going back to the gist of E. Michael Johnson's rebuttal to those of us concerned about the distance race in golf.

The game survives when it chooses to grow.  

Okay, set aside the fact that this line doesn't make any sense. Because the game is surviving right not even when all signs point to no growth.  But is "surviving" really acceptable or a healthy long term strategy? Of course not. 

Let's assume Johnson is saying that "growing" distances people hit the ball is good for golf. Now, as you regular readers of this site or The Future of Golf know, this "growing" thing has proven unproductive. Courses are growing in length, they are growing soulless in design, rounds are growing in length of time they take to play, rough is growing in length to compensate for distance jumps, fairway widths are growing in narrowness, cost is growing to play the game, and yet, by Johnson's own admission, longer drives fueled by equipment are not growing much for the average player.

Oh, and television ratings are not even close to growing. The number of rounds played, especially by avid players, has not grown.

So the growth that is occurring is almost entirely driven by deregulation.

As Frank Hannigan pointed out in his letter to this site the day prior to "Bomb's" big stand:

Clubs that want to entertain big events have done what clubs from time immemorial have done when the ball was juiced. They have lengthened their courses significantly and sometimes comically (see the Old Course at St. Andrews which had a tee added on another course.)

As for new courses with thoughts of grandeur, the standard has jumped from 7,000 to 7,500 yards in a short time. That requires more real estate and increased maintenance costs.

The USGA, charged with protecting golf, has caused it to become more expensive.

"It's my first love, playing golf"

Craig Dolch profiles Bobby Clampett in the Palm Beach Post. I know, you're printing this one out.

Bobby Clampett can talk a good game of golf. That's what he's done the past 15 years as a CBS golf announcer. He can analyze the game, the swing, the players. He can break down a player's swing, write a book about it, then turn his attention to golf-course design.

But the one thing about golf he enjoys far more than the others is playing it. Pure and simple, getting on the golf course and seeing how much he can control his swing for 18 holes. No excuses, no commentary, just performance.

Maybe he could return to playing full time? 

"It's my first love, playing golf," Clampett said by phone this week. "I feel when you have a God-given talent to play the game, you will never be fulfilled in life unless you give it your best. It's a gift. You sit on a gift, you don't do anybody any good."

And I think it sounds like God is going to help give him the time to pursue his gift full time...

But another part of his interest in playing golf again is his uncertain status at CBS - he still hasn't signed a new deal as the network has made several changes for 2007.

We can only pray that they'll make more changes. 

Teed Off At Winged Foot

Thanks to reader Noonan for this (not such a) Page Six shocker...

THE prestigious Winged Foot Golf Club in Westchester is still recovering from the effects of the U.S Open held there last summer. Members were seething because they couldn't get tee times and because of damage done to the grounds by the hordes. "Several members are smoking mad about the disruption and the inconvenience," said an insider. Winged Foot members - who include NFL legend Frank Gifford, former U.S. Rep. Joe DioGuardi, Citigroup director/SUNY trustee Thomas F. Egan and State Supreme Court Justice Nicholas Colabella - were ticked off even before the Open started, when club president Leonard P. Horan warned them in writing to keep their mouths shut around the press. Now another letter, obtained by Page Six, has gone out from treasurer Kenneth G. Beitz, saying, "A number of members have asked the Board for a summary of how we did financially." Not very well - Winged Foot got $5.6 million from "a fixed payment, corporate hospitality sales, and a consumer price index escalator," Beitz says. But after deducting the costs of "bringing in our fairways and expanding the rough areas," plus the loss of normal revenue, "our 'profit' for hosting this Open is approximately $1.5 million."

The Commissioner Cracks A Joke (Well, Sort Of)

From Doug Ferguson's AP notes column, and no, I didn't do the caps. They come standard on PGATour.com:

The home of THE PLAYERS Championship is expected to reopen on Nov. 13 after a seven-month renovation. The frame of the Mediterranean-style clubhouse already is in place, and there's a chance that also might be ready when THE PLAYERS Championship begins the second week in May.

But don't hold your breath.

"The good news is the clubhouse is on schedule," commissioner Tim Finchem said at a charity luncheon Monday. "The so-so news is that it's scheduled to open an hour before the first tee time."

TigerWoods.com Traffic

From Doug Ferguson's AP notes column...

Rob McNamara wouldn't have to pay attention to Tiger Woods to appreciate how his year has gone. All he has do is look at the "unique browsers" - number of people visiting - on Woods' web site.

"There are peaks and valleys depending on how he makes news," said McNamara, who runs tigerwoods.com. "On the golf course or off the golf course, that thing really spikes."

The unique browsers were about 8,000 a day until it leapt to 20,696 on June 7, the day Woods' said he was ending his nine-week break from golf and entering the U.S. Open. It was relatively stable at about 15,000 during the week of the British Open, then hit 43,199 on the day he captured the claret jug, followed by 49,494 unique browsers the following day.

The same thing happened for the PGA Championship. Unique browsers went from 13,869 on Saturday when Woods pulled into a tie with Luke Donald, then increased to 36,287 when he won by five shots at Medinah. The day after the PGA, there were 46,015 unique browsers.

Asked about his season after winning the World Golf Championships-American Express Championship for his sixth consecutive PGA TOUR victory, Woods referred to it as a loss because of his father's death in May.

That, too, was reflected on the Web site.

There were about 293,836 unique browsers on May 3, the day Woods announced his father's death on the Web site.

Bubble Boys Vol. 3

Doug Ferguson breaks down the Top 125 situation. Oh, and the top 30 situation, because I know you are just dying to find out if Joe Durant will be playing at East Lake.

Bamberger/Faldo Chat

Michael Bamberger questions Nick Faldo about his '07 TV schedule. Faldo doesn't seem super chatty.

Cronin on Erin Hills

Tim Cronin does some cross-platform leveraging for the USGA, pitting Erin Hills vs. Cog Hill in a battle of wannabe U.S. Open courses.

When the USGA finally brings the U.S. Open back to the Midwest -- it's booked elsewhere through 2013 -- Erin Hills, a spectacular new course in this sleepy rural hamlet 35 miles northwest of Milwaukee, has a remarkably good chance to get it.

How good? Mike Davis, who runs the Open for the USGA, has visited four times. On the grounds the first time after work had barely begun, he didn't return a second, third and fourth time to have a bratwurst.

Erin Hills is more than that good. Opened Aug. 1, it is instantly one of the great courses in the world.

Whoa Nellie. Deep breaths Tim.  

It is also a throwback, a course many will find too quirky, thinking too many of the hazards -- the earth rolling and heaving, leftovers of the last remnant of the Ice Age -- were either placed incorrectly or should have been bulldozed.

And lots of corporate tent space!

Captain Couples?

I've noticed in various stories mentioning who might land the gig as the next U.S. Ryder Cup Captain, Fred Couples keeps surfacing. Rich Lerner writes in another enjoyable column:

The hunch here is that Fred Couples will be the next Ryder Cup captain, with Paul Azinger and Corey Pavin under consideration.

However, John Hawkins blogged about Freddie's recent health scare, which may make it difficult for the PGA of America to select him.

It still seems to me that Pavin is their ideal candidate because he gives good press conference and, well, does anything else matter? 

Azinger has to scare the daylights out of the gang in Palm Beach even though he and Faldo could do their shtik while promoting the event. But Couples would bring a certain laid back approach that might help the U.S. team. However, his hatred of press conferences has to be a concern. Then again, if Woosie can get through it...

Thoughts?

Update on 2006-10-25 02:21 by Geoff

As soon as I post this, Cameron Morfit at Golfonline considers the possible captain's and doesn't even mention Couples.

Ogilvy, Murdoch and Bush

In the October 16th  New Yorker, Rupert Murdoch tells writer John Cassidy:

"People think I must be close to George Bush. I tell you, I've been to one state dinner, as a result of being put on the list by the Australian Prime Minister. I stood in the reception line and shook the President's hand. And that was my total lifetime experience with George Bush."

Now, you may recall that U.S. Open Champion Geoff Ogilvy also attended the dinner (recounted in this fine Peter Stone story.)

So yes, this means Ogilvy and News Corp. CEO have both met President Bush the same number of times. Of course, Murdoch left out the detail about being seated at the same table that night.  

PointMisser.com

...but at least I'm not a rally killer.

Yes, it seems my post last week on the latest musings from GolfDigest.com's "Bomb and Gouge" boys struck a nerve.  So much so, that Bomb and Gouge dropped their unfunny shtik for an ultra serious shtik.

Though somehow I suspect this post was more Bomb (E. Michael Johnson) than Gouge (Mike Stachura)...

We're sure Geoff Shackelford is a nice man. He is certainly an accomplished writer and contributor to the design of a golf course. But personal attacks on our integrity are a sign of weakness and low self-esteem.

But see, they never get personal. No sirree.

And, of course, point-missing. One of his latest musings suggests that our recent posting on attacking the issue of u-grooves was somehow motivated by a desire to promote the golf equipment industry and defend the USGA's equipment decisions.

No, just the golf industry part. I think we're all in agreement that the USGA is indefensible at this point. 

His overused lament is that the golf ball—that ongoing source of sturm und drang among the assembled panic-stricken, progress fearing golf Sanhedrin—needs to be dealt with in some draconian rollback, retrograde fashion.

It's a tired solution-less solution to a problem that does not exist.

I think it's time for the boys to visit The List, where they might note that it's not only little ole me suggesting something be done about this whole distance race, but people who actually matter like Jack Nicklaus, Ben Crenshaw, Tom Watson, Arnold Palmer and, wait, who's that down at the letter T saying he wished a line had been drawn by the USGA? Oh right, your boss! 

But the bigger issue is what exactly are the Shackelfords of the world afraid of? That Myopia Hunt won't be able to host another U.S. Open? That Wannamoisett is too short to be appreciated by today's players? That the subtle beauty of the gently lofted mashie-niblick and the stymie are lost to eternity? The game is a living, growing thing, and just as I assume Mr. Shackelford, despite his bleating cries, no longer wears diapers, the game too must leave behind the things it no longer needs. We may be afraid of distance and the golf ball, but fear is borne and festers out of ignorance. Knowledge and rational thinking keep it in check.

Note to head pros at Myopia, Wannamoisett and anything else built before 1960: E. Michael Johnson says the game can leave behind the things it no longer needs and includes your courses! 

In my conversations with officials at the USGA and the R&A, average driving distance of average golfers has maybe increased 10 or so yards over the last 15 years, to a whopping 210-215 yards. If 215 yard tee shots are obsoleting your golf course, it might be time to pick a new venue. An ultra-elite group of players may be hitting it farther, but 99 percent of the rest of us aren't. And when we roll the ball back next year or the year after, how soon until we have to do it again? And which of us is ready to play a shorter ball? And if the insanely easy to play golf equipment were such an advantage, everyone would be shooting 59 every day. The game finds a way to win.

So the equipment never really works, therefore we must continue to keep pushing the latest thing...for what reason again?

And because there is no need to bog this debate down with an endless dissertation, let's just mull some facts.

1. Currently, there are just two players on the PGA Tour who are averaging more than 300 yards in the tour's statistics that measure all drives. Two.

2. In the tour's driving distance average statistics, 20 players are averaging 300 or more yards. But here's the thing, only half of that number have ever won a tour event—EVER—and a third of that number (Woods, Couples, Love, Mickelson, etc.) have always been among the longest hitters. And here's one more thing, the number of 300-yard hitters is down from a year ago.

3. Driving distance has increased dramatically over the last 10 years. But it's flattened out in the last five. It's up about half a yard this year over last year. 18 inches. That's an increase of 0.17 percent. Is that the sky falling, or maybe something else?

They were doing so well there until point #3.

Flattened in the last five? Now, according to my media guide, the 2001 average was 279.4. And as of this week, the current Tour average is 289.7 (+10.3 yards).  And the gain since 1996 is 23 yards, and nearly half of that has come in the last five years.  Flattened?

Okay, the big wrap up:

The game survives when it chooses to grow.

Was that Darwin or Wind who said that? Sorry... 

Equipment isn't making anyone a dominant player. And when it chooses to test elite players in the way we average golfers are tested on a regular basis, the game will be stronger because it has the power to consistently find ways to turn back all threats.

Maybe that will make sense if we put it in the Ali G translata...

equipment isn't makin anyone a dominant playa. and whun it chooses to da test elite players in da way we average golfers is tested on a regular basis, da game will be stronga coz it as da powa to consistently check ways to turn back all threats.  

No, didn't help. 

Ames Out According To...Finchem

The news of Stephen Ames' WD from the Tour Championship was oddly delivered by PGA TOUR Commissioner Tim Finchem, and according to the wire service story,"Finchem said Ames was home in Calgary going through tests."

Why is the Commissioner announcing a WD? 

Update on 2006-10-24 04:13 by Geoff

Reader David says Ames was supposed to be in Jacksonville on Monday to announce the $2.7 million the Players Championship gave to area charities, thus explaining why Finchem made the announcement.

"Their skills are limited."

Jemele Hill in the Orlando Sentinel tackles the "why no promising young players" question and gets some interesting replies.

"Young guys just pick a driver out of a bin that goes 320 [yards]," said [Frank] Lickliter, who shot a blistering 62 in the final round of Disney's Funai Classic on Sunday. "They can't carve one on the fairway. They don't know how to knock down a wedge. Their skills are limited."

And Hill writes:

You could blame a lot of things for why golf is the latest sport lacking a strong presence of young American superstars -- the increased presence by talented foreigners is one -- but our obsession with flash is slowly killing U.S. dominance in sports around the globe.

Our kids would rather practice a 360-degree dunk a billion times than set one proper screen. They would rather obsess about home runs than learn how to stretch a single into a double. They would rather hit an 100-mph serve than develop a decent backhand.

In golf, it's all about the 300-yard blast off the tee. Michelle Wie has a big swing and an awfully hollow trophy case, but a mighty big bank account.

"It's kind of sad what's happened to the skill part of the game," said Scott Verplank, a 20-year pro. "The skills required to be a great player in this game are not near as important as they used to be. It's really changed the game."

This is just another depressing reminder of how much our sports culture emphasis on style has hurt the overall product.

Most of us were just fooled into thinking it was strictly a U.S. basketball problem. As it turns out, it's an American problem.

You can sit there and blame YouTube, MySpace and ESPN for the downfall of sports society, but we must take a hard look at ourselves first.

Most of us are more impressed with a teeth-rattling hit in football than a left guard's pull.

This is where you wish Jemile had floated her column idea by her colleague, Steve Elling. 

Golf course designers and PGA officials know we're hooked on Happy Gilmore-esque shots, which is why more courses are being built to complement power instead of finesse.

Ugh...yep, it's all the fault of architects. Now, why is it again that architects are lengthening courses?

Letter From Saugerties, October 23, 2006

It's been a while since former USGA Executive Director Frank Hannigan sent a "letter" (his previous correspondences are here and here). But thankfully he has broken his silence with a devastating appraisal of the current USGA that includes his reaction to the recent ESPN.com chat comments by Walter Driver.

Take it away, Frank...

I was fascinated, if not encouraged, by the passionate arguments on your site after the recent blowing of smoke by USGA president Walter Driver on the subject of distance control.

The central point was missed.  Rolling back distance is not a technical issue.  It’s a political matter centering on the retention of position without annoyance or threats.  

Driver and his USGA know precisely what’s happened.  The average driving distance on the PGA Tour shot up 28 yards on average in 10 years.   The USGA wishes the clock would revert to 1994 so it could at least consider behaving correctly.  But it can’t even say so because that would be an admission it has bungled its most important duty.

Two distinct happenings accounted for the new yardage.  The first was the advent of excessive spring like effect in drivers in the mid 90s.  Everybody on the tour got 10 to 15 yards longer.

Then followed modifications to the ball that enabled the best players to pick up another 15 yards even though the new balls still conformed to the USGA’s critical overall distance standard test.

On spring-like effect, the Rules of Golf already said that clubs designed to produce that effect, akin to what you see with metal bats in amateur baseball, would not be acceptable.   There was no specificity however.  So the USGA Executive Committee in 1998 made a craven decision.

They correctly approved a new test to measure coefficient of restitution (COR) but instead of setting it at the level of the best metal drivers of the early 90s they chose to write the standard around what was already on the market.

Had the right thing been done there would have been hell to pay since a great number of existing drivers would have failed.  A prominent member of that executive committee later said to me, “We thought we were betting the franchise on that vote.”  He and others feared a rebellion by the owners of the springier drivers which would not then conform to the Rules of Golf.  But if you are billing yourself as the “governing body of golf” it follows that you will occasionally have to make unpopular decisions. For more than a decade the USGA has caved in the face of conflict, and by no means only on equipment.

When the longer flying balls came about the USGA was already equipped with a superb testing mechanism, an indoor device that, quite simply, can predict the outcome of any hit.

It was as clear as day that the changed balls were exceeding the intent of the distance tests.

Having capitulated on the driver, the USGA consistently bowed on the ball - announcing that no ball on its list of conforming products would be banned.  Instead, it went into its fake mode and changed the distance standard to accommodate the new and unexpected.

By the way, it’s ridiculous that the USGA should be held to a standard whereby its rules on  equipment have to foresee every conceivable change. The founding fathers of the nation did not anticipate that General Electric would poison the Hudson River, but GE is damn well going to have to pay for cleaning it up.               

Two points: 1. It was the USGA’s highest priority to put an absolute cap on added distance achieved by equipment changes while I worked at the USGA between 1961 and 1989; 2. Nobody HAS to play the USGA’s rules.   Its position should have been to reject the springy drivers and the longer flying balls while saying “We recognize golfers can go right on playing the other stuff but they may NOT  say they are then doing so under the USGA Rules of Golf.  Take your choice.”

Rolling back distance now can be done in any number of ways.  A simple alteration would be to say that as of January 1, 2008, the fail point for the overall distance standard would be 305 yards instead of 320 yards.   Assuming the PGA Tour accepted such a change (remember, nobody has to do what the USGA wants) driving distance on the Tour would drop immediately and considerably. 

The people who now run the USGA are unlikely to come close to making such a change because they want to appear in ceremonies as rulers and get to hang out with Arnold Palmer.  The time has long past when the USGA could enlist for its executive committee citizens of consequence willing to actually take care of golf rather than amuse themselves with toys like a leased jet.

A new and shorter ball would surely be made.  But manufacturers might very well keep on producing today’s ball.

In the pro shops of the hallowed member owned clubs - Pine Valley, Cypress Point, The Country Club - the USGA would be backed to the hilt with notices that only the USGA approved balls would be tolerated on their courses.   Ah, but what about Wal-Mart?  Offered the chance, how many of the long balls might it sell, and at discounted prices to boot?

What would be the outcome on daily fee courses everywhere?  Might there be chaos with two distinctly different balls in play?   I think, and over a short time, the USGA would prevail because there is an internal drive for uniformity in equipment among golfers.  It’s akin to the monkey grip in babies. The USGA should be more than willing to bet the franchise but it will not.

There is a great irony in all this.   The modern equipment changes are enablers only for a tiny percentage of golfers.  You have to be very good to take advantage of added spring like effect.   The average golfer prefers to think otherwise, willing to hit his credit card for a $425 driver that does nothing for him or her.  You have to be a low handicap golfer to get the added juice--good enough to make the semi-finals in a club championship.

But even if I’m wrong so that the average golfer is getting a few more yards, if there was a rollback in distance the matter could be leveled out by putting the tee markers up a few yards.

The USGA has been allowed to stand pat because what has happened is akin to a victimless crime.

The PGA Tour, God knows, has not been harmed economically by the distance explosion.

The Tour exists only (forget the First Tee nonsense) to enrich its members and it has done so sensationally. The USGA, on the other hand, exists to define golf.

Accordingly, there is no pressure on the USGA to act honestly.

I do not blame the manufacturers.  They too have one purpose - make money for their owners.   Many are not tortured by brilliance.    When it comes to balls, one company, Acushnet, dominates the market.    The rest fight over slices of market share.  It would be in the best interest of every ball maker save Acushnet to jump all over a new ball, to start the game from scratch with ads proclaiming “our new ball is more like the old ball than X’s ball.”

The contributors to your site made much of the 2002 Statement of Principles issued jointly by the USGA and its partner in victimless crimes, the R&A of Scotland.  They proclaimed they would not tolerate any “significant” increase in distance. To clarify when they meant to clamp down they used the word “now.”

The very next year, 2003, witnessed an enormous increase in driving distance: 6.5 yards.

By any reasonable standard, that increase was “significant”.  It happened because the manufacturers were playing out the law of physics. They’d gone as far as they could go.  The USGA and R&A did nothing.

Driver has fallen back on saying that distance has been “nearly flat the last 3 years.”  He’s right, but all the horses have left the barns.     

I think stability is likely for some time.  In honesty, though, I must report that if someone had asked me in 1989, when I was managing the affairs of the USGA, if spring-like effect was likely to have an adverse consequence, I would have said “No chance.”

There has been no upside to the collapse of the USGA on distance.   Golf, as a recreational activity, has been flat nationally for a long time.    But in terms of being both artistic and competitive courses like the San Francisco Golf Club, Colonial and the Chicago Golf Club, they have become toys and museum pieces. I fear the same has happened at Shinnecock Hills which was tortured by the USGA at the 2004 U.S. Open in order to produce high scores.

Clubs that want to entertain big events have done what clubs from time immemorial have done when the ball was juiced. They have lengthened their courses significantly and sometimes comically (see the Old Course at St. Andrews which had a tee added on another course.)

As for new courses with thoughts of grandeur, the standard has jumped from 7,000 to 7,500 yards in a short time. That requires more real estate and increased maintenance costs.

The USGA, charged with protecting golf, has caused it to become more expensive.

The only way the fervent minority who care about the failure of the USGA could grow and become effective would be to mount a direct challenge to the USGA as it is.   That means ousting the current executive committee.  A revolt.

The USGA by-laws specify that any 20 USGA clubs, out of 10,000, can submit a slate of 15 to oppose the 15 nominated by the establishment.   (The number used to be 5 until I called attention to the by-laws a few years ago).  

The slogan for the slate should be “It’s the distance, stupid.” An actual ballot would have to be sent to all member clubs.  (Potential insurgents take note--the deadline for submitting a rump slate is Nov. 30.)

Internally, the USGA is a mess.  The Executive Committee, instead of intensely monitoring the work of the staff and establishing policy, is in a hands-on mico-managing mode.   They like to play at golf management and pretend that their presence is essential whereas, in truth, all they should be doing is read what’s sent to them and attend three meetings a year. 

Would an effort to get this crowd out, however noble, succeed?    Not at first.  But it would scare the hell out of those who drool at the thought of traveling on the leased jet.  Above all, it would cause there to be a debate on the subject. The USGA has been more than effective in keeping its malfeasance quiet.

Shareholders revolts sometime work, even in non-profit entities.   The eastern division of the US Tennis Association, its largest, has had a splendid internal fight which has already reached the court and appeal stages.

Even the American Civil Liberties Union is in a quarrel on the issue of who should be on its board. If the ACLU can tolerate a touch of democracy, why can’t the USGA?