What is with the Hating on the USGA?

[DFS PFD]

We're not asking players to understand kinematics, we're asking them to understand the very foundation of the game (the rules) they get compensated incredibly well to play.

 

Forgetting/not knowing the USGA playoff system in its first year of existence is hardly a misunderstanding of "the very foundation of the game".

 

I follow and play golf religiously and I have to say I completely forgot about the new USGA playoff format until it was brought up in that press conference. These guys are focused on their games heading into a major, not rules changes to the game of golf or the equipment they play.

 

If the number of holes in a playoff is "foundation of the game" element then the game has been on mighty shaky ground for a very long time.

Good point the rules are just a minor inconvenience, I mean look at the other thread about the player openly admitting to rules violations. At least his head was in the game. I'm DJ agree's rules are just a small part of the game, what's a few strokes on 18 worth? Couple million dollars?

[Sean2]

The USGA has been an "inside the beltway" type of organization. They aren't really in touch with the average golfer. I stopped my "membership" when they enforced the "groove rule". Which has obviously had a major impact on Touring pros. :-)

[North Butte]

The number of holes USGA chooses from year to year for its playoff format has nothing to do with the Rules of Golf. The Rules of golf would let them make it 18 holes or 72 holes or one-hole or two-hole sudden death or three-hole aggregate or determine the winner with a scorecard countback.

[DFS PFD]

The number of holes USGA chooses from year to year for its playoff format has nothing to do with the Rules of Golf. The Rules of golf would let them make it 18 holes or 72 holes or one-hole or two-hole sudden death or three-hole aggregate or determine the winner with a scorecard countback.

 

So if a player is unfamiliar with the playoff format (which I guess is separate from any rules), and plays his way into a Monday 18 hole playoff, but can't be present because of prior engagements (a stretch, I know), is that the USGA's fault as well? Is asking these "professionals" to be well informed in their field really asking too much of them?

[North Butte]

The number of holes USGA chooses from year to year for its playoff format has nothing to do with the Rules of Golf. The Rules of golf would let them make it 18 holes or 72 holes or one-hole or two-hole sudden death or three-hole aggregate or determine the winner with a scorecard countback.

 

So if a player is unfamiliar with the playoff format (which I guess is separate from any rules), and plays his way into a Monday 18 hole playoff, but can't be present because of prior engagements (a stretch, I know), is that the USGA's fault as well? Is asking these "professionals" to be well informed in their field really asking too much of them?

 

I honestly don't give a damn about what some particular Tour player knows or doesn't. I'm sure there's plenty of stuff in my own job that I either don't know or understand incorrectly. I doubt Dustin Johnson is too bothered by knowing I make a mistake once in a while.

[bscinstnct]

Just saw this, linked at Geoff Shackelford's website; from his Golfweek article from pre-Open press conferences comes the news that before Tuesday, neither Jordan Spieth* nor Justin Thomas** knew about the new USGA playoff format. Which was not only announced to considerable fanfare and discussion in February, but also was actually used, in the US Women's Open just two weeks ago at Shoal Creek.

 

Honestly, it's no big deal if the two young players didn't know about it. What could they do, to change it or specially prepare for their competition this week? Nothing, really.

 

But in the context of commenters suggesting that we really need to ask current Tour players about things like a ball rollback, or course setups, it is a noteworthy bit of cluelessness about their sport. They are both great players, and fun to watch. And often, fun to listen to. But being a great player doesn't make you wise about the administration of the game of golf.

 

 

*Titleist brand ambassador; not that there's anything wrong with that.

**Titleist brand ambassador; not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

 

"Administration?"

 

 

 

[DFS PFD]

The number of holes USGA chooses from year to year for its playoff format has nothing to do with the Rules of Golf. The Rules of golf would let them make it 18 holes or 72 holes or one-hole or two-hole sudden death or three-hole aggregate or determine the winner with a scorecard countback.

 

So if a player is unfamiliar with the playoff format (which I guess is separate from any rules), and plays his way into a Monday 18 hole playoff, but can't be present because of prior engagements (a stretch, I know), is that the USGA's fault as well? Is asking these "professionals" to be well informed in their field really asking too much of them?

 

I honestly don't give a damn about what some particular Tour player knows or doesn't. I'm sure there's plenty of stuff in my own job that I either don't know or understand incorrectly. I doubt Dustin Johnson is too bothered by knowing I make a mistake once in a while.

That's unfortunate, I hope you find something you're passionate about.

[North Butte]

The number of holes USGA chooses from year to year for its playoff format has nothing to do with the Rules of Golf. The Rules of golf would let them make it 18 holes or 72 holes or one-hole or two-hole sudden death or three-hole aggregate or determine the winner with a scorecard countback.

 

So if a player is unfamiliar with the playoff format (which I guess is separate from any rules), and plays his way into a Monday 18 hole playoff, but can't be present because of prior engagements (a stretch, I know), is that the USGA's fault as well? Is asking these "professionals" to be well informed in their field really asking too much of them?

 

I honestly don't give a damn about what some particular Tour player knows or doesn't. I'm sure there's plenty of stuff in my own job that I either don't know or understand incorrectly. I doubt Dustin Johnson is too bothered by knowing I make a mistake once in a while.

That's unfortunate, I hope you find something you're passionate about.

 

I am passionate about playing golf. I am occasionally too passionate for my own good when it comes to really, really good or really, really horrible rounds.

 

Other people playing golf? Not so much.

[DFS PFD]

The number of holes USGA chooses from year to year for its playoff format has nothing to do with the Rules of Golf. The Rules of golf would let them make it 18 holes or 72 holes or one-hole or two-hole sudden death or three-hole aggregate or determine the winner with a scorecard countback.

 

So if a player is unfamiliar with the playoff format (which I guess is separate from any rules), and plays his way into a Monday 18 hole playoff, but can't be present because of prior engagements (a stretch, I know), is that the USGA's fault as well? Is asking these "professionals" to be well informed in their field really asking too much of them?

 

I honestly don't give a damn about what some particular Tour player knows or doesn't. I'm sure there's plenty of stuff in my own job that I either don't know or understand incorrectly. I doubt Dustin Johnson is too bothered by knowing I make a mistake once in a while.

That's unfortunate, I hope you find something you're passionate about.

 

I am passionate about playing golf. I am occasionally too passionate for my own good when it comes to really, really good or really, really horrible rounds.

 

Other people playing golf? Not so much.

I meant your job, you're clearly passionate about golf. And none of that was supposed to be a slight, it was truly sincere.

[buckeyefl]

We're not asking players to understand kinematics, we're asking them to understand the very foundation of the game (the rules) they get compensated incredibly well to play.

 

Forgetting/not knowing the USGA playoff system in its first year of existence is hardly a misunderstanding of "the very foundation of the game".

 

I follow and play golf religiously and I have to say I completely forgot about the new USGA playoff format until it was brought up in that press conference. These guys are focused on their games heading into a major, not rules changes to the game of golf or the equipment they play.

 

If the number of holes in a playoff is "foundation of the game" element then the game has been on mighty shaky ground for a very long time.

Good point the rules are just a minor inconvenience, I mean look at the other thread about the player openly admitting to rules violations. At least his head was in the game. I'm DJ agree's rules are just a small part of the game, what's a few strokes on 18 worth? Couple million dollars?

 

Are you channeling 15th? Sometimes it's best to just stay silent. They didn't purposely take illegal relief, they didn't know the playoff format. Good God man try to focus and not be so dramatic.

 

The number of holes USGA chooses from year to year for its playoff format has nothing to do with the Rules of Golf. The Rules of golf would let them make it 18 holes or 72 holes or one-hole or two-hole sudden death or three-hole aggregate or determine the winner with a scorecard countback.

 

So if a player is unfamiliar with the playoff format (which I guess is separate from any rules), and plays his way into a Monday 18 hole playoff, but can't be present because of prior engagements (a stretch, I know), is that the USGA's fault as well? Is asking these "professionals" to be well informed in their field really asking too much of them?

 

Once again, step away from the keyboard.

[North Butte]

I meant your job, you're clearly passionate about golf. And none of that was supposed to be a slight, it was truly sincere.

 

One thing that works differently in large organizations as compared to independent contractors like Tour players is that there are colleagues looking over my shoulder and checking my work, as I look over their shoulder and check theirs. Not that collectively we catch every single error that might happen (seems highly unlikely).

 

But from time to time one of us will notice an error in something so simple or wrong-headed it would surely be laughed at if there were TV cameras following us around trying to catch us out in a Fred Merckle "bonehead" mistake. If I had to work under that sort of scrutiny I'd probably quit and go hide under a rock somewhere.

[Shilgy]

https://www.golfdige...ly-not-the-case

 

A lot of what he says in that article is encouraging , particularly that stretched courses are sometimes more about vanity than need, and the desire to consider amateurs in their decision

 

Unfortunately I just think he's a liar with an ax to grind and it's all lip service as his mind is already made up

 

But hey that's me

What I do not understand in that is the apparent lack of inviting any manufacturers to the talks. 15 certainly would not want Titleist involved but why not the others? Ask what can be done that perhaps would affect elite more than recreational? Perhaps spinnier-heavier(or lighter for that matter).

 

If they truly wish to make an informed decision they need to know what the cost is and what is possible.

[buckeyefl]

But sadly they really don't care about any of those things. Agenda above all.

[15th Club]

I guess that I need to make my point more plainly.

 

A guy who wasn’t even aware of the new playoff format for USGA championships isn’t a bad person or even a bad tour golfer. I didn’t raise this issue to prove any of those things.

 

I raised this issue to go back to the notion of what sort of input we should seek from tour players on issues like a ball rollback.

 

And a guy who was not even aware of the much-publicized playoff change is not a guy who inspires confidence as someone who is well-informed on the USGA’s general issues.

 

Still, I’d like to hear what both of them think. I really would. They would be about the 50th and 51st people on my list of folks to consult. And among current tour players, they’d be about the 20th and 21st guys whose input I might want. Even at that, I’d want to know how their Titleist sponsorship colors their opinions.

 

[bigred90gt]

I don't agree with Hank Haney on very much, but I agree with his take on the USGA. From where I sit, they just look like a bunch of rich guys in blue blazers playing the best courses in the country and telling the rest of us how to behave. They cater to the private club member with a high 6-figure income and have virtually nothing to do with me.

 

They don't even cater to the 6-figure income country club member. I'm sure those guys aren't all complaining about long putters or the ball either. I would imagine their views on making golf harder are the same as any other demographic

 

The USGA's sole interest seems to be the optics of the pro game, as it relates to "what golf is supposed to be" in their views and very little else.

 

That assertion that I have bolded is certainly and clearly wrong. The USGA is responsible for much of elite-level amateur golf, including the various national amateur championships, the Walker Cup, etc.

 

In regard to equipment technology, the USGA is now acutely (and rightly) concerned about "elite" level golf. Top amateurs, even juniors, in addition to the professional tours (all of which gleefully sponge off the USGA's doing a vast amount of equipment and rules administration for them). Which is much broader and larger than just "the pro game" as you ascribe.

 

And yet it pales in comparison to the rest of the golfers in the US that they SHOULD be concerned about. The elitist attitude is tiring. They are the makers and keepers of the rules and handicaps for the US. They should act like it and consider the effects on those people more than the "elite players".

[15th Club]

https://www.golfdige...ly-not-the-case

 

A lot of what he says in that article is encouraging , particularly that stretched courses are sometimes more about vanity than need, and the desire to consider amateurs in their decision

 

Unfortunately I just think he's a liar with an ax to grind and it's all lip service as his mind is already made up

 

But hey that's me

What I do not understand in that is the apparent lack of inviting any manufacturers to the talks. 15 certainly would not want Titleist involved but why not the others? Ask what can be done that perhaps would affect elite more than recreational? Perhaps spinnier-heavier(or lighter for that matter).

 

If they truly wish to make an informed decision they need to know what the cost is and what is possible.

 

Wait a minute! The USGA has been including the manufacturers in all kinds of discussions on this issue going back to at least 2002.

 

And this week the USGA reconfirmed that they are seeking input from all stakeholders in the controversy.

 

What are you talking about?

[DFS PFD]

For everyone who wants a relaxed USGA that represents "the people", why do you care what the USGA says? Why make all this noise and not play the game the way you want to? Abandon the USGA and they will surely die off.

[bscinstnct]

I guess that I need to make my point more plainly.

 

A guy who wasn't even aware of the new playoff format for USGA championships isn't a bad person or even a bad tour golfer. I didn't raise this issue to prove any of those things.

 

I raised this issue to go back to the notion of what sort of input we should seek from tour players on issues like a ball rollback.

 

And a guy who was not even aware of the much-publicized playoff change is not a guy who inspires confidence as someone who is well-informed on the USGA's general issues.

 

Still, I'd like to hear what both of them think. I really would. They would be about the 50th and 51st people on my list of folks to consult. And among current tour players, they'd be about the 20th and 21st guys whose input I might want. Even at that, I'd want to know how their Titleist sponsorship colors their opinions.

 

Yeah, why would you want to know the opinion of two of the guys who best represent

 

The future of the game?

 

Fortunately, JT, JS, and the players have the only "input" that matters and they have more than enough leverage to send the USGA packing if they get overzealous in their "administration".

[Shilgy]

The number of holes USGA chooses from year to year for its playoff format has nothing to do with the Rules of Golf. The Rules of golf would let them make it 18 holes or 72 holes or one-hole or two-hole sudden death or three-hole aggregate or determine the winner with a scorecard countback.

 

So if a player is unfamiliar with the playoff format (which I guess is separate from any rules), and plays his way into a Monday 18 hole playoff, but can't be present because of prior engagements (a stretch, I know), is that the USGA's fault as well? Is asking these "professionals" to be well informed in their field really asking too much of them?

Are you worried they will make unbreakable dinner plans and miss the playoff? Spieth stated he thought it was the traditional 18 hole Monday playoff. So it is not the rules he does not understand as you state it is the as yet never used US Open playoff format. I really doubt that come Sunday any player in contention would not be aware of the format.

[Shilgy]

https://www.golfdige...ly-not-the-case

 

A lot of what he says in that article is encouraging , particularly that stretched courses are sometimes more about vanity than need, and the desire to consider amateurs in their decision

 

Unfortunately I just think he's a liar with an ax to grind and it's all lip service as his mind is already made up

 

But hey that's me

What I do not understand in that is the apparent lack of inviting any manufacturers to the talks. 15 certainly would not want Titleist involved but why not the others? Ask what can be done that perhaps would affect elite more than recreational? Perhaps spinnier-heavier(or lighter for that matter).

 

If they truly wish to make an informed decision they need to know what the cost is and what is possible.

 

Wait a minute! The USGA has been including the manufacturers in all kinds of discussions on this issue going back to at least 2002.

 

And this week the USGA reconfirmed that they are seeking input from all stakeholders in the controversy.

 

What are you talking about?

The study, which will initially involve 21 industry stakeholders (architects, superintendents, golf course operators, tour players, and recreational players among them), is expected to take place over the next year and a half, a period which Davis said the USGA will “go quiet” on the topic.

 

Edit: ​Perhaps Geoff just paraphrased to leave "manufacturers" off the list.

[North Butte]

The number of holes USGA chooses from year to year for its playoff format has nothing to do with the Rules of Golf. The Rules of golf would let them make it 18 holes or 72 holes or one-hole or two-hole sudden death or three-hole aggregate or determine the winner with a scorecard countback.

 

So if a player is unfamiliar with the playoff format (which I guess is separate from any rules), and plays his way into a Monday 18 hole playoff, but can't be present because of prior engagements (a stretch, I know), is that the USGA's fault as well? Is asking these "professionals" to be well informed in their field really asking too much of them?

Are you worried they will make unbreakable dinner plans and miss the playoff? Spieth stated he thought it was the traditional 18 hole Monday playoff. So it is not the rules he does not understand as you state it is the as yet never used US Open playoff format. I really doubt that come Sunday any player in contention would not be aware of the format.

 

In true-to-GolfWRX fashion maybe we ought to be asking this...

 

What club(s) should Jordan Spieth add to his bag for this week, now that he knows the playoff will be two holes instead of 18?

[DFS PFD]

The number of holes USGA chooses from year to year for its playoff format has nothing to do with the Rules of Golf. The Rules of golf would let them make it 18 holes or 72 holes or one-hole or two-hole sudden death or three-hole aggregate or determine the winner with a scorecard countback.

 

So if a player is unfamiliar with the playoff format (which I guess is separate from any rules), and plays his way into a Monday 18 hole playoff, but can't be present because of prior engagements (a stretch, I know), is that the USGA's fault as well? Is asking these "professionals" to be well informed in their field really asking too much of them?

Are you worried they will make unbreakable dinner plans and miss the playoff? Spieth stated he thought it was the traditional 18 hole Monday playoff. So it is not the rules he does not understand as you state it is the as yet never used US Open playoff format. I really doubt that come Sunday any player in contention would not be aware of the format.

I guess I was out of line expecting these professionals to understand all of the details of their profession. My apologies. Tier 1 professionals know every detail of their job, I guess all these guys need to do is hit the ball better than the next guy. I bet they know when/where the after party is though.

[NPVWhiz]

I can't say that I see the square groove stuff as a real issue. I don't have the data to defend the decision, but the decision was implemented in a way to minimize its impact. Manufacturers were given enough time to revise their production methods, existing clubs were grandfathered in, nobody was forced to buy new clubs. What's the big deal? I'd suggest that the anchored putter ban was a bigger deal for many golfers, but even that decision allowed enough room for players to continue to use long putters. I do agree that anchoring a club against the body differs from the image I have of a golf swing. I'm surprised that nobody has complained about the rule outlawing croquet-style putting.

 

+1.

 

I was always an agnostic on anchored putting a long putters. I felt sorry, for any poor bastxxx whose putting was so pathetic that they had to resort to something so ungainly. I didn't want to hurt them any more than a hole the size of a Scottish drain pipe was already hurting them.

 

But the USGA saw top-level junior players learning to play that way, and it wasn't for the yips, or a bad back or for arthritic wrists. It was to take advantage of an anchored stroke.

 

And so they wanted to ban anchoring. Trouble is, it is so damned hard to write and enforce a rule against anchored putting. I never envied the guys who were tasked with that rule-writing. But just because it is hard to write a rule doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done. It is hard to write a rule against insider trading on the stock market. That doesn't mean that we should allow insider trading.

 

I'm a hard-core; if it were up to me, I'd enforce an absolute length limit on putters. But even that rule is hard to write.

 

And how is it that time and time again, the USGA has to make changes because of the lack of foresight in a prior decade? It is the rule, rather than the exception. The USGA should have ruled on putter anchoring immediately. It should have been within weeks of the first time it showed up in elite tournament play. But they turned a blind eye, just like they did with larger and larger driver heads and a number of other technology issues. They are reactive to a fault rather than forward looking in protecting the integrity of the game with regard to equipment advances. And there is never any consequence, because there is no ruling body for the ruling body. They neglect with impunity. Give me one good example where they acted proactively with regard to a technology issue in the last 30 years. Proactively, where they saw an issue well out on the horizon and acted to avoid a problem.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

The number of holes USGA chooses from year to year for its playoff format has nothing to do with the Rules of Golf. The Rules of golf would let them make it 18 holes or 72 holes or one-hole or two-hole sudden death or three-hole aggregate or determine the winner with a scorecard countback.

 

So if a player is unfamiliar with the playoff format (which I guess is separate from any rules), and plays his way into a Monday 18 hole playoff, but can't be present because of prior engagements (a stretch, I know), is that the USGA's fault as well? Is asking these "professionals" to be well informed in their field really asking too much of them?

Are you worried they will make unbreakable dinner plans and miss the playoff? Spieth stated he thought it was the traditional 18 hole Monday playoff. So it is not the rules he does not understand as you state it is the as yet never used US Open playoff format. I really doubt that come Sunday any player in contention would not be aware of the format.

I guess I was out of line expecting these professionals to understand all of the details of their profession. My apologies. Tier 1 professionals know every detail of their job, I guess all these guys need to do is hit the ball better than the next guy. I bet they know when/where the after party is though.

What's a "tier 1" professional?

[NPVWhiz]

I guess that I need to make my point more plainly.

 

A guy who wasn't even aware of the new playoff format for USGA championships isn't a bad person or even a bad tour golfer. I didn't raise this issue to prove any of those things.

 

I raised this issue to go back to the notion of what sort of input we should seek from tour players on issues like a ball rollback.

 

And a guy who was not even aware of the much-publicized playoff change is not a guy who inspires confidence as someone who is well-informed on the USGA's general issues.

 

Still, I'd like to hear what both of them think. I really would. They would be about the 50th and 51st people on my list of folks to consult. And among current tour players, they'd be about the 20th and 21st guys whose input I might want. Even at that, I'd want to know how their Titleist sponsorship colors their opinions.

 

Yeah, why would you want to know the opinion of two of the guys who best represent

 

The future of the game?

 

Fortunately, JT, JS, and the players have the only "input" that matters and they have more than enough leverage to send the USGA packing if they get overzealous in their "administration".

 

Or it may be that many tour level professionals are beginning to see a different way forward that wouldn’t involve the USGA as much. Perhaps once a year is enough, and thus the youngsters on tour are less tuned in to the farts of dust that emanate from NJ with regard to the deeply arcane and anachronistic rules structure that they created.

[bigred90gt]

Jack Nicklaus made it a story, when he rightly called out Titleist last month. Jack knows what is going on.

 

 

But in the context of commenters suggesting that we really need to ask current Tour players about things like a ball rollback, or course setups, it is a noteworthy bit of cluelessness about their sport. They are both great players, and fun to watch. And often, fun to listen to. But being a great player doesn't make you wise about the administration of the game of golf.

 

lol. You cant be taken seriously man.

 

Lets see if I get this right:

Jack - FORMERLY a great player. Nothing more, nothing less. He knows what is going on with the current game and his opinion should be held in high regard and hold weight in the discussion.

 

Justin and Jordan - CURRENT great players, arguably two of the best golfers on the planet right now, nothing more nothing less. Because they did not understand a change in the playoff structure, the current generation of tour players opinion should be disregarded because of their "cluelessness about their sport".

 

Did I get that right?

 

If being a great player doesnt make you wise about the administration of the game of golf, then we should also dismiss anything Jack has to say. Because, lets face it, he was nothing more than a great player, and he isnt even THAT anymore.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Jack Nicklaus made it a story, when he rightly called out Titleist last month. Jack knows what is going on.

 

But in the context of commenters suggesting that we really need to ask current Tour players about things like a ball rollback, or course setups, it is a noteworthy bit of cluelessness about their sport. They are both great players, and fun to watch. And often, fun to listen to. But being a great player doesn't make you wise about the administration of the game of golf.

 

lol. You cant be taken seriously man.

 

Lets see if I get this right:

Jack - FORMERLY a great player. Nothing more, nothing less. He knows what is going on with the current game and his opinion should be held in high regard and hold weight in the discussion.

 

Justin and Jordan - CURRENT great players, arguably two of the best golfers on the planet right now, nothing more nothing less. Because they did not understand a change in the playoff structure, the current generation of tour players opinion should be disregarded because of their "cluelessness about their sport".

 

Did I get that right?

 

If being a great player doesnt make you wise about the administration of the game of golf, then we should also dismiss anything Jack has to say. Because, lets face it, he was nothing more than a great player, and he isnt even THAT anymore.

 

Oh, you gon' done it now! Prime Nicklaus could throw it around Shinnecock and make the cut. Many people forget that he was a multi-sport athlete...in high school...in Upper Arlington, Ohio...in the 1950s.

He is the supreme authority on the matter, as are all other retired players and other people who have never played the game at a high level. You bite your tongue.

[bscinstnct]

I guess that I need to make my point more plainly.

 

A guy who wasn't even aware of the new playoff format for USGA championships isn't a bad person or even a bad tour golfer. I didn't raise this issue to prove any of those things.

 

I raised this issue to go back to the notion of what sort of input we should seek from tour players on issues like a ball rollback.

 

And a guy who was not even aware of the much-publicized playoff change is not a guy who inspires confidence as someone who is well-informed on the USGA's general issues.

 

Still, I'd like to hear what both of them think. I really would. They would be about the 50th and 51st people on my list of folks to consult. And among current tour players, they'd be about the 20th and 21st guys whose input I might want. Even at that, I'd want to know how their Titleist sponsorship colors their opinions.

 

Yeah, why would you want to know the opinion of two of the guys who best represent

 

The future of the game?

 

Fortunately, JT, JS, and the players have the only "input" that matters and they have more than enough leverage to send the USGA packing if they get overzealous in their "administration".

 

Or it may be that many tour level professionals are beginning to see a different way forward that wouldn't involve the USGA as much. Perhaps once a year is enough, and thus the youngsters on tour are less tuned in to the farts of dust that emanate from NJ with regard to the deeply arcane and anachronistic rules structure that they created.

 

The problem for the USGA is that

 

At the amateur level you won't find anyone who would approve of a ball rollback for amateurs/recreational players.

 

At the pro level, they don't have the leverage to force the PGA Tour/players to comply with a rollback.

[FiveSixAce]

The tour pros don't like the USGA. The guys at Augusta treat the players like royals; the US Open is a democratic golf tournament, and the pros are not treated as well as at other tournaments. No sponsor cars, etc. So the pros don't particularly like the USGA. And then you have rule situations like Dustin's ball moving on the green, and that was certainly a black eye. As have been some of the recent US Open set ups.

 

The USGA tries to make the hardest setup on golf, to try to determine the best champion. Many people who watch the US Open expect that, and even enjoy it for one week a year. It is hard to be liked when you are tasked with making the most demanding setup.

 

By the way, Haney is a tool.

 

They have sponsor cars. Lexus this year.

[bigred90gt]

15th - IF the new regulations come out that call for a rollback of 20-25% of ALL golf balls across the board, would you support that? You keep talking about this mythical ball that wont effect slower swing speeds, but some of us know that's not really feasible. So, if anything is done, it will effect everyone from the recreational senior to the full ranks of elite golfers and everyone in between. Do you support that?