"Instead of ego marketing, we're introducing logic marketing."

Going in the "this is going to get ugly files"...from Steve Elling in the Orlando Sentinel:

That's actually the alchemy of choice for the folks at Bridgestone Golf, who are rolling out a slightly antagonistic national "ball-fitting" program in 2007 intended to take a bite out of Titleist's decades-old dominance of the ball market.

Simply put, the last great sacred cow in golf is about to be paraded into the public square, shot, then ground into hamburger. For the first time, a competing ball company is "outing" a top competitor by shouting from the mountaintop what the industry has whispered among itself for years. To wit, millions of golfers are wasting millions of dollars on balls like the pricey Titleist Pro V1, even though there's minimal chance it will improve their game. In fact, it might be hindering it.

"[Titleist] is the brand they don't have to think about," Dan Murphy, the marketing director of Bridgestone's golf division, said of consumers. "It's an ego thing. Instead of ego marketing, we're introducing logic marketing. There's a quote."

Remember Wally, I just copy and paste this stuff! 

But seriously, shouldn't Mr. Murphy be saying that instead of ego marketing, they're introducing logic fitting? He seems to be saying they are trading one form of marketing for another, as opposed to marketing being substituted for genuine fitting.  

The Ball Problem

Not the golf one, but the NBA one, which ESPN.com's Marc Stein analyzes quite nicely here.

Reading this, it's easy to imagine a similar debacle in golf if and when it becomes clear the USGA will never roll back the ball and someone tries to manufacture a true tournament ball that is foisted upon players.

"Elite players are not afraid of distance advances. None of them are campaigning for rollbacks."

The Belly and Groove Bomb and Gouge boys are still at it, arguing with Chuck about their lack of concern for throwing St. Andrews and Augusta out to the trash heap so that grown men can shop unencumbered by regulation.

From Gouge:

The game advances and we deal with it. Augusta of 41 years ago would not be a test for today's players. Well, we don't exactly know that, but let's assume that it wouldn't be a test. Big deal. It's changed to become more of a test.

I always would love to hear people argue that Augusta has "become more of a test" since the recent changes. Besides the fact it is now one-dimensional off the tee with defined fairways, I wonder if they would say this to the faces of Hogan, Nelson, Snead, Nicklaus, Palmer and Player. Or even Ballesteros, Faldo, Crenshaw and Langer.  Because the insinuation is that without rough it wasn't a full test and that somehow, those old Masters are tainted.

Here's another howler:

Elite players are not afraid of distance advances. None of them are campaigning for rollbacks.

Actually, that's just simply not true. As this list attests.

The USGA has also studied the new drivers vs. the old drivers. Misses three-quarters of an inch off the center of the face travel almost 20 percent farther than they did off a mid-1990s driver. Now, in none of those cases is that distance harming the game (nor does it harm the game at the elite level, as you can't win tournaments hitting it three-quarters of an inch off the center of the face), but taking it away would remove some of that potential for someone actually getting around a golf course. You would take that away all in the name of preserving some tedious anachronism. Good job.

Today's drivers allow for someone to "actually" get around a golf course.

It's a wonder the game survived before today's equipment saved it! 

For more of these profound musings go here, here, here and for my original low self-esteem diagnosis, here.

"Holding onto...the Old Course as tests for elite players out of an obligation to the past is sheer folly."

It's time for another interesting tirade by Bollocks and Garbage Bomb and Gouge who put shopping above even the most sacred traditions. This time a reader wonders at what point the game breaks after sigificant advances render courses obsolete or pocketbooks empty and the Belch and Gulpers joined forces for this gem:

When does the game break? When it refuses to move forward by mindlessly clinging to the past. Amazing how Dr. Naismith let his game advance beyond the peach basket.

The USGA has changed its ball regulations as recently as 2004, and if you read the rule carefully, it may have even been more restrictive. But to your concern over the great venues, I can only offer this:

Myopia Hunt
Newport CC
Garden City
Prestwick
Musselburgh
Chicago GC

Oh but here's where it gets good.

We've had the courage to move past these venues as sites for major championships because for reasons of length, and sometimes more importantly, infrastructure, they stopped being relevant as a site.

Courage? Well, I guess placing consumption over Chicago Golf Club does take courage.

They didn't stop being relevant as significant golf courses. Are their places in history any less secure for not being part of any major championship rota today. No. But holding onto the Winged Foots, the Augusta Nationals and Merions and even the Old Course as tests for elite players out of an obligation to the past is sheer folly. Let's remember that Merion didn't host a U.S. Open until 1934, nearly 40 years after the U.S. Open began. They had the courage to do new and different things back then. Where is the courage to do the same today?

True, it does take courage to move golf's most historic events to lousy new 8,000 yard courses in order to preserve the right to buy a new driver every year. It takes even more courage to put such a thought in print.

"We move on."

In working through my issues as diagnosed by Brandy and Gin Bomb and Gouge over at GolfDigest.com, I went back to read their diagnosis and noticed that a rather spirited debate was taking place.

Since this stuff can only be read in small doses, let's start with Gouge's (Mike Stachura) reply to Chuck, who was pointing out that allowing significant distance increases to occur has the dreaded side effect of leading to unnecessary architectural changes.

GOUGE responds: It is unfortunate that some people like yourself continue to believe that journalistic integrity is dead. But so be it. I have no financial stake in the equipment debate. As for Mr. Tarde's statements in print, well, they are his, they are not always mine. That is the beauty of a public forum. That is the beauty and strength of our enterprise as a magazine. And the only thing I must admit is that the game must adapt. I have no impractical affinity for maintaining the relevance of venues of the past. If a great course from the past is no longer a sufficient test for the .0001 percent of the universe of golfers, that is not a tragedy. We move on. If Winged Foot, Augusta National and even the Old Course get left behind as outdated and irrelevant for championship golf, I cry no tears. That leaves those majestic venues for the 99.9999 percent of us who can still appreciate their greatness. But thanks for your thoughts. The discourse shows the game itself still has meaning.

It's amazing what grown men will do to preseve their shopping privileges!

Apparently, whipping out the credit card to purchase new hope that's scientifically proven to not significantly help 99.9999 percent "of us," is more important to the game of golf than playing the Masters at Augusta National or the Open Championship at St. Andrews.

What makes it all so bizarre, is that even if the game were bifurcated or the ball rolled back to preserve these venues, people will still buy plenty of balls and clubs and the pro game might be a lot more fun to watch.

Here V Go Again...Redux

Golf Digest has posted Mike Stachura's excellent October story on the pending grooves controversy. You might recall that I posted something about this story a while back, but there was no link to the actual piece.

Stachura, who is part of the Belch and Gulp Bomb and Gouge blog team that writes so highly of this site, explores the USGA's preliminary report. In it, the Far Hills gang signals their concern that U-grooves are the cause of all world problems.

One of the key graphs from Stachura's story:

Rugge has repeatedly pointed to analysis of PGA Tour driving-accuracy statistics in his discussions about modern technology. Using a mathematical formula called a correlation coefficient, Rugge shows the correlation between accuracy off the tee and rank on the money list has dropped to zero, as in the two events are completely independent of each another. That's a dramatic change from the 1980s, when driving accuracy was as statistically strong an indicator of success as greens in regulation and putting. "We have 20 years of data from the tour that suggests this might be a problem," Rugge says. "Grooves could be a logical cause of that change. We also have better means of evaluation than we had 20 years ago, and that includes equipment and staffing."

Fairway widths cut by 15-25 yards may have something to do with it too. It will be interesting to see if the USGA addresses this component of the equation. I have my doubts.

Those in the know suggest that given the USGA's mandate for a single set of rules, going after grooves might be a way to put a regulator on distance without affecting average golfers. In a Bomb-and-Gouge world, if shots from the rough were more difficult, an elite player needing to hit it close to the hole might opt for control off the tee over power. Average players, content to hit shots close to the green, might be less impacted by the inconsistency of V-grooves.

Of course this is a backdoor attempt to deal with the distance issue, but more importantly seems a bit dubious when you consider what Frank Thomas wrote in his Golf Digest column about the impact of U-grooves in tournament caliber rough.

From light rough (up to two inches), a ball will spin 40 percent less than it would from dry conditions. This is because the water in grass serves as a lubricant between the ball and the clubface. Because the cover never penetrates more than .005 inches into the groove, which is limited to a depth of .02 inches, this is the only condition in which groove configuration matters. Out of light rough the groove depth can carry away more water and decrease the effects of lubrication on spin. However, from rough of four to five inches, it doesn't matter what type of ball or grooves you are using.

Squaring Things Up

GolfDigest.com's Burp and Gargle resurface after making my low self-esteem diagnosis to blog about winners and losers in the new square driver race.

Adding Bonallack To The List

Despite all that nonsense about 63 degree wedges de-skilling the game, Michael Bonallack has been added to The List of those voicing concern about technology's role in the modern game. And when I get that list going of former golf executives expressing remorse for the lack of action during their tenure, he'll go on that one too.

"The ball got away from everybody."

Yes, add Michael Bonallack to the list of rehabilitating golf executives who wish they'd done more then so we would have the game we have now. It's touching I tell you to hear this kind of remorse, documented by John Huggan in his Sunday column:

"The most fun I've ever had was being secretary of the R&A. I was there when the Open was really starting to take off, in financial terms. We were able to use that money to aid the development of the game."

However, representing the public face of golf's rules-making body outside the United States and Mexico could prove uncomfortable. During Bonallack's tenure, the battle between administrators and equipment companies was joined in earnest, and it rages on to this day.

"The biggest problem was with Ping and the grooves on their irons. That was very unpleasant. I remember sitting at dinner after watching the Walker Cup matches at Peach Tree in 1989 and being tapped on the shoulder. It was a sheriff telling me I was served.

"The writ said they were suing for $100m tripled. They have what they call punitive damages in the United States, and it wasn't only the R&A they were suing, but me personally. That got my attention!

"We had good lawyers, though. They showed that the US courts had no jurisdiction over us. We were making rules for golfers outside America.

"The wider equipment issue was a problem then, and continues to be so today, at the top level of the game anyway. There are a number of things I wish we had done, but obviously we didn't do.

"The ball got away from everybody. The scientists said the ball could go only ten more yards, but they were wrong. New materials kept on coming out, and then along came metal woods. They have taken a lot of the skill out of the game for the leading players. As have the new wedges.

"The shots only Seve used to be able to play with a 50-degree wedge are now routine for everyone who buys a 63-degree wedge. All of that crept into the game without anyone really realising the significance. I wish we could go back, but we can't."

Perhaps sensing that he has already said too much about the one subject that golf administrators tend not to enjoy discussing, Bonallack pre-empts the next question.

"There is no use asking me what I'd do if I was in charge today. When I retired I said I wasn't going to get involved in any of these controversial things. Besides, if I started announcing what I would do, people could quite rightly ask why I didn't do those things when I was in charge. Certainly, we missed some opportunities with the ball and the metal woods, but they crept up on us."

One other sadness for Bonallack is the knock-on effect modern equipment has had on course set-ups. As so many did at last year's Open, he looked on askance at the amount of rough growing on the Old Course at St Andrews.

"It does upset me to see what they have to do to golf courses nowadays. There is no doubt that the modern equipment has caused many good courses to be altered. I hate to see long grass around greens on any course. I like the ball to run off to where players can hit all kinds of recovery shots.

"It is fascinating to watch someone like Tiger working out what shot will work best after he has missed a green. Long grass eliminates all of that, and takes a lot of the skill out of the game."

"Sounds like someone swatting an empty cola can upon contact."

Thanks to reader Bob for noticing this Doug Ferguson description of the square driver K.J. Choi used to win at Innisbrook:

"(Choi) started using a new driver last week that not only is square, but sounds like someone swatting an empty cola can upon contact. Els played with Choi on Saturday and compared the sound to a tuna can attached to a shaft."

Square...Drivers

There was talk early in the week about these apparently ugly new square headed drivers tested out by the Callaway players in Europe, and I mistakenly chalked the articles up to scribblers hoping that Larry Dorman would send them a freebie.

But Mark Reason in the Telegraph dug a bit deeper and suggested this:

And it could become even harder for those Europeans to win majors next season if Tiger Woods takes advantage of the new square-headed driver that has been on show in Spain this week. So far the players have been reluctant to use the new driver in actual competition — although Thomas Bjorn employed it in Thursday's round of 78 — but they have no doubt as to its advantages.

They also believe that it might straighten out the one weakness in Tiger's game. After yesterday's round, Nick Dougherty said: "Thank God Tiger's driving like he is or there would be no point in the rest of us turning up. There almost isn't now. But if he starts driving it again like he did in 2000, then we really needn't bother because his iron play and short game is so much better than it was then." Dougherty believes that Woods might well turn to this new technology to minimise his weakness from the tee. He says: "Well, he looks like a traditional guy … but if he's still driving it poorly next year then I would say yeah, we will see him using it at next year's Open." The point of the square-headed driver that has been developed by both Callaway and Nike is that it doesn't twist as much on impact as conventional drivers — the introduction of super-slow-mo having shown, to the surprise of many experts, that a large proportion of crooked shots are the result of the clubhead twisting from the impact of an off-centre hit.

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.

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. 

"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?