What is with the Hating on the USGA?

[dlygrisse]

As far as the pros go, I think it really got going when Payne Stewart was critical on TV for the 18th at Olympic, then Phil at Shinnecock. that Par 3 was ridiculous

 

Groove rule. Stooooopid. .

[buckeyefl]

The hate is so unfair. Why aren't they being praised and rewarded for their breathtaking incompetence? It's 2018 after all.

well according to millenials, its not the USGA's fault at all. the fault lies in the founding members of the tournament deciding it needed to be so tough - those are the cards they were dealt. now they just get to complain about it.

What if I don't identify with a particular ruling?

identify yourself as a lost ball.

. If you don't know you are a lost ball can you identify as one?

[davep043]

At this point, I just wonder how much the USGA is paying people to defend their ill-advised decisions and attack critics.

 

Not enough! I'll take just one million, of the 19 million that Wally Uihelin took home from Acushnet Holdings Company, Inc., in 2016. And for that, I'll work a lot harder at it.

Actually, I quite enjoy rebutting the lynch-mob mentality of the USGA haters. I don't have to agree with everything the USGA does to appreciate the very difficult things that they actually do. And I've yet to see anyone suggest a better option, other than one reasoned approach to a better handicap system.

 

The PGA of America.

The PGA of America can adopt the USGA rules that make sense.

PGA of America Rules can govern all play.

PGA of America Professionals, who run the local tournaments, can interpret and apply their own association's rules for local tournaments.

PGA of America Professionals, who talk to players, give lessons, run youth clinics, and otherwise are on the front lines of the game, can give the feedback and comments directly to their own association to govern the game in the US.

The PGA of America can decide which "studies" it wants to fund using member dues, but the members, who are in touch with the game, will have a say on what is needed.

The PGA of America can decide which "studies" it wants to fund via other means, and outsource them to the lowest bidder.

The PGA of America can outsource equipment testing to the lowest bidder. The USGA can submit a bid.

 

In short, the Professional Golfers Association of America is WAY more in touch with the amateur game than the USGA. Somewhat ironic.

Interesting proposition. Do you anticipate that the PGA Rules would be any more universally accepted than the USGA Rules? In my view, the USGA/R&A did a reasonably good job of simplifying the language of the Rules for 2019, and I have no problem with most of the changes they made. What do you think the PGA would do differently? Do you think the PGA members would know the PGA Rules any better than they know the USGA Rules? They're reasonably knowledgeable now, but I've run into a few completely wrong rulings from PGA professionals, on fairly basic matters. I know the PGA requires a certain minimum level of teaching expertise in order to become a Class A pro, but lots of PGA instructors disagree vehemently on all kind of swing issues. Do you think they'll find ways to agree on how the PGA Rules should be written and enforced??

 

I'm not trying to slam the PGA or its members, just point out that its a difficult job you want them to take on.

[WidespreadPanic]

Is it considered hating if you have specific and real reasons? Wouldnt it just be voicing your opinion?

[15th Club]

...

...

 

15th, do you agree with the way the USGA handled the DJ situation in 2016?

 

And the blaming of the super for loosing the greens at Shinnecock , when they know full welll they establish Control weeks or months before the event.

 

I blame the USGA completely for the Seventh green in 2004. Again, I say that what gets overlooked in that was the upset that the newly-developed urethane ball phenomenon was causing at that time, as the ruling bodies were coming to grips with an unprecedented distance gain in the few years preceding that championship.

 

In any event, I don't think that anyone at the USGA is blaming any superintendent or staff member now. And as far as I know, one person (Walter Driver) did that out of defensive ignorance or misinformation.

 

Tom Meeks, ex- of the USGA says that he alone takes the blame.

 

Again, isn't this a case of mythmaking taking over the actual story? The actual story is that a mistake was made, and it was made for a complex of reasons. But the mythmaking takes over, because the popular narrative is to try to find reasons to hate on the USGA.

 

And none of those reasons was the ball. The ProV1 had been out for four years by that point and the USGA had their hands on them before that point.

 

Exactly; the ProV had been out for four years, and the USGA had been seeing the distance gains. When I wrote, "the newly-developed urethane balls," I knew exactly the time frame I was referring to. In 2004, Shinnecock bore lots of the hallmarks of the ProV era (especially the early-ProV era). Narrowed fairways, longer rough, hard greens.

[ex0dus]

For the record the scrambling numbers from the rough were virtually identical before the groove rule change (2007) and after the change (2009).

 

https://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.363.2007.html

 

 

https://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.363.2009.html

[moonshine]

I could argue against decision to give coverage to fs1...plain hokey at times. Other than that... trivial IMO.

[davep043]

For the record the scrambling numbers from the rough were virtually identical before the groove rule change (2007) and after the change (2009).

 

https://www.pgatour....t.363.2007.html

 

 

https://www.pgatour....t.363.2009.html

The change in the rule was announced in 2008, if I remember right, but only became effective in 2010. Its probable that the scrambling numbers didn't change because the equipment didn't change.

[15th Club]

For the record the scrambling numbers from the rough were virtually identical before the groove rule change (2007) and after the change (2009).

 

https://www.pgatour....t.363.2007.html

 

 

https://www.pgatour....t.363.2009.html

 

Not that I am interested in whatever statistical game you are playing, but the groove "rule" went into effect on January 1, 2010.

[ex0dus]

For the record the scrambling numbers from the rough were virtually identical before the groove rule change (2007) and after the change (2009).

 

https://www.pgatour....t.363.2007.html

 

 

https://www.pgatour....t.363.2009.html

 

Not that I am interested in whatever statistical game you are playing, but the groove "rule" went into effect on January 1, 2010.

 

 

And the scrambling numbers from the rough didn't go down in 2010,at all...

 

https://www.pgatour....t.363.2010.html

 

But I know the facts won't prevent you from believing that the rule had it's intended effect.

[bigred90gt]

For the record the scrambling numbers from the rough were virtually identical before the groove rule change (2007) and after the change (2009).

 

https://www.pgatour....t.363.2007.html

 

 

https://www.pgatour....t.363.2009.html

 

So is proximity to the hole (from 09-10, not 07-09). If memory serves me, it went from 18' to 18'2.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

At this point, I just wonder how much the USGA is paying people to defend their ill-advised decisions and attack critics.

 

Not enough! I'll take just one million, of the 19 million that Wally Uihelin took home from Acushnet Holdings Company, Inc., in 2016. And for that, I'll work a lot harder at it.

Actually, I quite enjoy rebutting the lynch-mob mentality of the USGA haters. I don't have to agree with everything the USGA does to appreciate the very difficult things that they actually do. And I've yet to see anyone suggest a better option, other than one reasoned approach to a better handicap system.

 

The PGA of America.

The PGA of America can adopt the USGA rules that make sense.

PGA of America Rules can govern all play.

PGA of America Professionals, who run the local tournaments, can interpret and apply their own association's rules for local tournaments.

PGA of America Professionals, who talk to players, give lessons, run youth clinics, and otherwise are on the front lines of the game, can give the feedback and comments directly to their own association to govern the game in the US.

The PGA of America can decide which "studies" it wants to fund using member dues, but the members, who are in touch with the game, will have a say on what is needed.

The PGA of America can decide which "studies" it wants to fund via other means, and outsource them to the lowest bidder.

The PGA of America can outsource equipment testing to the lowest bidder. The USGA can submit a bid.

 

In short, the Professional Golfers Association of America is WAY more in touch with the amateur game than the USGA. Somewhat ironic.

Interesting proposition. Do you anticipate that the PGA Rules would be any more universally accepted than the USGA Rules? In my view, the USGA/R&A did a reasonably good job of simplifying the language of the Rules for 2019, and I have no problem with most of the changes they made. What do you think the PGA would do differently? Do you think the PGA members would know the PGA Rules any better than they know the USGA Rules? They're reasonably knowledgeable now, but I've run into a few completely wrong rulings from PGA professionals, on fairly basic matters. I know the PGA requires a certain minimum level of teaching expertise in order to become a Class A pro, but lots of PGA instructors disagree vehemently on all kind of swing issues. Do you think they'll find ways to agree on how the PGA Rules should be written and enforced??

 

I'm not trying to slam the PGA or its members, just point out that its a difficult job you want them to take on.

 

I'll try to address all points. I'm working off the assumption that the PGAA rules will be the new rules, and the USGA is no longer involved in rules. I think the question was: what are the alternatives?

 

I think the rules would be the exact same, for now. I think any further changes would be made by those with more direct input from people who know the state of golf a lot better than some Seminole members, or whatever. I think the other issues you've identified are currently present with the USGA (bungled rulings, etc.), Except for swing philosophy. I'm confused by that one.

 

 

[davep043]

For the record the scrambling numbers from the rough were virtually identical before the groove rule change (2007) and after the change (2009).

 

https://www.pgatour....t.363.2007.html

 

 

https://www.pgatour....t.363.2009.html

 

Not that I am interested in whatever statistical game you are playing, but the groove "rule" went into effect on January 1, 2010.

 

 

And the scrambling numbers from the rough didn't go down in 2010,at all...

 

https://www.pgatour....t.363.2010.html

 

But I know the facts won't prevent you from believing that the rule had it's intended effect.

If you read what I've posted, I've said nothing about whether its goal was reasonable, or whether its goal was achieved, I've simply said that I just don't see it as a big deal.

[15th Club]

For the record the scrambling numbers from the rough were virtually identical before the groove rule change (2007) and after the change (2009).

 

https://www.pgatour....t.363.2007.html

 

 

https://www.pgatour....t.363.2009.html

 

Not that I am interested in whatever statistical game you are playing, but the groove "rule" went into effect on January 1, 2010.

 

 

And the scrambling numbers from the rough didn't go down in 2010,at all...

 

https://www.pgatour....t.363.2010.html

 

But I know the facts won't prevent you from believing that the rule had it's intended effect.

 

It's not that; it's just that I don't think that a nuanced and highly technical discussion about statistical interpretation makes the USGA's groove initiative a "joke."

 

That is what I am grinding on with you. Your trashtalk, and your calling the rule a "joke." When the more we get down to it, the more we find that the implementation of the rule was well planned and smooth, and the statistical effect of the rule on the game of golf at the Tour level is mixed.

 

See it is like this; there is you, with your stupid trashtalk about it being a "joke"... And then there is a skilled golf equipment writer like Mike Stachura (with whom I have disagreed before, in particular with regard to a ball rollback) who thinks that the statistical picture is mixed and merits a complicated discussion.

[davep043]

 

I'll try to address all points. I'm working off the assumption that the PGAA rules will be the new rules, and the USGA is no longer involved in rules. I think the question was: what are the alternatives?

 

I think the rules would be the exact same, for now. I think any further changes would be made by those with more direct input from people who know the state of golf a lot better than some Seminole members, or whatever. I think the other issues you've identified are currently present with the USGA (bungled rulings, etc.), Except for swing philosophy. I'm confused by that one.

My only point with the instruction bit was that there are currently huge disagreements between PGA members over something that has long been a part of their mission, golf instruction. I anticipate that there would be huge disagreements over new tasks that the PGA might take on, including rules and handicap systems.

 

To a point, I think I like a bit of a disconnect between the golfing masses and the rulemakers. Many regular avid golfers have a very limited understanding of the actual rules, and even less understand of the evolution of the rules to date. I believe that changes to the rules should be made only with a good understanding of the history of the game. I understand that could give the image of rules coming down from some elite out-of-touch group of curmudgeons, but I'm not sure I want the masses involved in revising the rules. I know the PGA Professionals are much more knowledgeable than the "masses" I'm talking about, and I'd support their involvement and feedback to future rules revisions, but I'd also worry that many PGA members might be unduly influenced by the people who pay his salary, the members at his home club. As a somewhat off-topic question, how many of the posters here read the rules proposals last year, and provided their feedback to the USGA?

[buckeyefl]

You really do have a thing for writers.

[gioguy21]

I'll try to address all points. I'm working off the assumption that the PGAA rules will be the new rules, and the USGA is no longer involved in rules. I think the question was: what are the alternatives?

 

I think the rules would be the exact same, for now. I think any further changes would be made by those with more direct input from people who know the state of golf a lot better than some Seminole members, or whatever. I think the other issues you've identified are currently present with the USGA (bungled rulings, etc.), Except for swing philosophy. I'm confused by that one.

My only point with the instruction bit was that there are currently huge disagreements between PGA members over something that has long been a part of their mission, golf instruction. I anticipate that there would be huge disagreements over new tasks that the PGA might take on, including rules and handicap systems.

 

To a point, I think I like a bit of a disconnect between the golfing masses and the rulemakers. Many regular avid golfers have a very limited understanding of the actual rules, and even less understand of the evolution of the rules to date. I believe that changes to the rules should be made only with a good understanding of the history of the game. I understand that could give the image of rules coming down from some elite out-of-touch group of curmudgeons, but I'm not sure I want the masses involved in revising the rules. I know the PGA Professionals are much more knowledgeable than the "masses" I'm talking about, and I'd support their involvement and feedback to future rules revisions, but I'd also worry that many PGA members might be unduly influenced by the people who pay his salary, the members at his home club. As a somewhat off-topic question, how many of the posters here read the rules proposals last year, and provided their feedback to the USGA?

 

let us know when you get done having your own internal disagreement...? lol

[ex0dus]

For the record the scrambling numbers from the rough were virtually identical before the groove rule change (2007) and after the change (2009).

 

https://www.pgatour....t.363.2007.html

 

 

https://www.pgatour....t.363.2009.html

 

Not that I am interested in whatever statistical game you are playing, but the groove "rule" went into effect on January 1, 2010.

 

 

And the scrambling numbers from the rough didn't go down in 2010,at all...

 

https://www.pgatour....t.363.2010.html

 

But I know the facts won't prevent you from believing that the rule had it's intended effect.

 

It's not that; it's just that I don't think that a nuanced and highly technical discussion about statistical interpretation makes the USGA's groove initiative a "joke."

 

That is what I am grinding on with you. Your trashtalk, and your calling the rule a "joke." When the more we get down to it, the more we find that the implementation of the rule was well planned and smooth, and the statistical effect of the rule on the game of golf at the Tour level is mixed.

 

See it is like this; there is you, with your stupid trashtalk about it being a "joke"... And then there is a skilled golf equipment writer like Mike Stachura (with whom I have disagreed before, in particular with regard to a ball rollback) who thinks that the statistical picture is mixed and merits a complicated discussion.

 

 

From the article

In fact, nearly every sub-category of approaches from the rough is about the same or even better today than it was in 2009.

 

He then moves on to talk about driving accuracy and the money list, which may or may not be because of the rule change. There are other factors that can come into play that effect the importance of driving accuracy.

 

The USGA has actually made driving accuracy less important in the US Open in recent years. Last year at Erin Hills was a perfect example.

 

And of course this article doesn't address my primary complaint, changing the rules for everyone based solely on what the best players in the world are doing.

[15th Club]

You really do have a thing for writers.

 

I find them far, far, far more interesting, than just about any 20-something Tour player. There are lots of good players to watch. I can go to the Trans-Mississippi and watch spectacular golf, in a much better setting than most Tour events. There aren't a lot of 20-somethings who have much worthwhile to say on golf management or the curation of golf course architecture. And to be sure, the ones that do have something interesting to say (there are a few) are the people who make me happiest about the future of golf. Of the rest, with time and experience and accumulated wisdom, some others will also get there. Again, a good thing.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

 

I'll try to address all points. I'm working off the assumption that the PGAA rules will be the new rules, and the USGA is no longer involved in rules. I think the question was: what are the alternatives?

 

I think the rules would be the exact same, for now. I think any further changes would be made by those with more direct input from people who know the state of golf a lot better than some Seminole members, or whatever. I think the other issues you've identified are currently present with the USGA (bungled rulings, etc.), Except for swing philosophy. I'm confused by that one.

My only point with the instruction bit was that there are currently huge disagreements between PGA members over something that has long been a part of their mission, golf instruction. I anticipate that there would be huge disagreements over new tasks that the PGA might take on, including rules and handicap systems.

 

To a point, I think I like a bit of a disconnect between the golfing masses and the rulemakers. Many regular avid golfers have a very limited understanding of the actual rules, and even less understand of the evolution of the rules to date. I believe that changes to the rules should be made only with a good understanding of the history of the game. I understand that could give the image of rules coming down from some elite out-of-touch group of curmudgeons, but I'm not sure I want the masses involved in revising the rules. I know the PGA Professionals are much more knowledgeable than the "masses" I'm talking about, and I'd support their involvement and feedback to future rules revisions, but I'd also worry that many PGA members might be unduly influenced by the people who pay his salary, the members at his home club. As a somewhat off-topic question, how many of the posters here read the rules proposals last year, and provided their feedback to the USGA?

 

I apologize because I'm on my phone, but I want to address what you bolded. I'm not talking about a straight up vote of PGAA members for rule changes, I'm talking more about a request for comment situation from vetted pros who interact with the amateur game on a daily basis.

 

[15th Club]

...

 

...And of course this article doesn't address my primary complaint, changing the rules for everyone based solely on what the best players in the world are doing.

 

Yeah well I can't help you with that one. The USGA and I are in complete agreement that we must avoid bifurcation wherever we can. You're out of luck with me on that issue.

 

But what you should learn from the groove rule is that the USGA really doesn't care, about jamming equipment rules on recreational players. They want to make the rules count at the highest levels, and let everyone follow along in the least-intrusive, least-inconvenient way possible. So with recreational players, the USGA's answer to the question, "When do I need to switch my grooves?", the answer was, "Whenever it suits you."

[davep043]

I apologize because I'm on my phone, but I want to address what you bolded. I'm not talking about a straight up vote of PGAA members for rule changes, I'm talking more about a request for comment situation from vetted pros who interact with the amateur game on a daily basis.

I think one of the greatest difficulties the rulesmakers face is that the game is played by people of hugely differing abilities, on courses that have huge differences in terrain, geology, design features, etc, and its not easy to write rules that apply equitably to everyone on every course. Getting input from knowledgeable people who see all of those golfers and all of those courses is certainly logical, and golf professionals around the world would be a great source. Having a higher tier of more knowledgeable folks like you suggest makes a lot of sense.

 

I don't really know what the USGA's procedure was when they developed the first version of the 2019 changes, how widely they cast the net for input. They certainly did ask for comments and criticism of those proposed rule changes from everyone interested, and its clear that they paid attention to that input when you see the changes between the initial and final versions of the 2019 rules.

[ex0dus]

I wouldn't be surprised to see the PGA Tour/PGA of America break away from the USGA. As I understand it both were strongly against the anchoring ban, which offended the USGA. If I remember right the USGA announced their deal with FOX during the PGA championship, a punk move that pissed off a lot of people.

[curitiba]

I apologize because I'm on my phone, but I want to address what you bolded. I'm not talking about a straight up vote of PGAA members for rule changes, I'm talking more about a request for comment situation from vetted pros who interact with the amateur game on a daily basis.

I think one of the greatest difficulties the rulesmakers face is that the game is played by people of hugely differing abilities, on courses that have huge differences in terrain, geology, design features, etc, and its not easy to write rules that apply equitably to everyone on every course. Getting input from knowledgeable people who see all of those golfers and all of those courses is certainly logical, and golf professionals around the world would be a great source. Having a higher tier of more knowledgeable folks like you suggest makes a lot of sense.

 

I don't really know what the USGA's procedure was when they developed the first version of the 2019 changes, how widely they cast the net for input. They certainly did ask for comments and criticism of those proposed rule changes from everyone interested, and its clear that they paid attention to that input when you see the changes between the initial and final versions of the 2019 rules.

 

USGA and RANDA sent proposals to countries and golf bodies all over the world. For example, in Brazil we hosted a few tournaments with these proposals and asked feedback from the players.

 

Also, Randa ( R&A) held seminars with all South America Countries asking us to debate all of the rules of golf. The pros and cons.

[curitiba]

I wouldn't be surprised to see the PGA Tour/PGA of America break away from the USGA. As I understand it both were strongly against the anchoring ban, which offended the USGA. If I remember right the USGA announced their deal with FOX during the PGA championship, a punk move that pissed off a lot of people.

 

I never knew PGATOUR and PGA of America were tied to the USGA? Matter of fact, none of the bodies are affiliated to each other, other than helping and working with each other in specific tournaments.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

I apologize because I'm on my phone, but I want to address what you bolded. I'm not talking about a straight up vote of PGAA members for rule changes, I'm talking more about a request for comment situation from vetted pros who interact with the amateur game on a daily basis.

I think one of the greatest difficulties the rulesmakers face is that the game is played by people of hugely differing abilities, on courses that have huge differences in terrain, geology, design features, etc, and its not easy to write rules that apply equitably to everyone on every course. Getting input from knowledgeable people who see all of those golfers and all of those courses is certainly logical, and golf professionals around the world would be a great source. Having a higher tier of more knowledgeable folks like you suggest makes a lot of sense.

 

I don't really know what the USGA's procedure was when they developed the first version of the 2019 changes, how widely they cast the net for input. They certainly did ask for comments and criticism of those proposed rule changes from everyone interested, and its clear that they paid attention to that input when you see the changes between the initial and final versions of the 2019 rules.

 

Yeah, I agree with the USGA's decision to open it up for comments from any and all, but I wonder if the quality of comments would be as high as if they came from PGA pros. Going back to the original question, I think the PGA of America could do a fine job taking over for the USGA in administering the rules and determining whether a proposed change is good for the game as a whole. They have a lot of "people on the ground" so to speak.

 

I suppose the bottom line I see is this: We have two US associations who are dedicated to growing the game. One sees, hears, and instructs the players every day (along with running most tournaments), the other makes the rules. My opinion only: the former might do a better job.

[North Texas]

Thanks davep043 for your well-thought out and well-reasoned responses in this thread.

 

It is much welcomed relief from most of the drivel I'm reading in this thread.

[just base]

Is it because the Tour players have become a bunch of little bitches? The US Open is supposed to be tough. Yes, Chambers was a bad call, and Erin was a joke, but everyone played the same course. I grew up playing Shinnecock Hills. They could protect par if they wanted to. We'll see how it plays out!.....

 

I find the complaining about courses to be a tad repetitive and annoying too. Players tend to nitpick a couple of things and then post them on twitter or whatever. A couple of years ago there was the video of the player showing a ball rolling for 10 yards past the hole on the practice green, or the guy dribbling a golf ball on the grass to show how hard it was.....but once the tournament started you didn't see stuff like that

 

I actually think the USGA has done a good job setting up courses and thinking progressively , Davis has pioneered adding drive-able par 4's most years etc....

 

But they are just such idiots in other ways it's hard to like them. I mean when they were like "We've listened to Dustin Johnson, we've listened to his playing partner, we've listened to the rules official on the course, everyone says he did nothing wrong.....that being said, we're giving him a penalty 'cause you know, we can do that sh*t if we want"....I mean they deserve to be ridiculed

 

Anyone please correct me if my memory is faulty. I remember a rules official approaching DJ a few holes after the incident, telling him "hey, we're looking at it, but we don't know what we are going to do about it yet", and essentially telling the leader in the final round of a freaking US Open that he can't know where he stands, MID-ROUND, until they make a decision. "You might be ahead by one or two, but we don't know yet. Good luck on the next few holes, bro."

 

That was the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen, ruling wise.

 

Yeah, your memory is faulty. And so since what you have recounted, fake quotes and all, didn't happen in that way, all the rest isn't worth talking about.

 

15th club is Mike Davis?

[Roadking2003]

As I understand it both were strongly against the anchoring ban, which offended the USGA. If I remember right the USGA announced their deal with FOX during the PGA championship, a punk move that pissed off a lot of people.

 

Very strange post. Why would changing TV companies make it a "punk move"? And what is a "punk move"?

[just base]

At this point, I just wonder how much the USGA is paying people to defend their ill-advised decisions and attack critics.

I'm not sure they are paying people. 15th Club clearly works for the USGA and I would venture to guess that Mr. Davis does post frequently in this forum, presumably in the endlessly long thread about changing the golf ball.