What is with the Hating on the USGA?

[davep043]

Honest ignorance here, with an honest question, what organization was behind the Lexi Thompson ruling? That was the most atrocious decision I've heard about in professional golf, and painful to watch.

 

Honest, clear answer: it was the USGA.

 

And the USGA supplied a completely public accounting of the ruling, and the reaction, HERE. I commend it to you, straight up.

 

I thought it was the correct ruling. I have absolutely no problem, with any golf ruling as long as it is the right ruling. I don't care if it was caught by a tv assistant director, or a commentator, or a former USGA executive having a cocktail at home in Florida on his big-screen.

 

 

ANA is put on by the LPGA Tour according to Wikipedia.

I believe it was the LPGA who assessed the penalties, and quite correctly. Lexi definitely did not replace the ball in its original position. And as regards the revised rule saying a players "reasonable judgement" will be accepted, I believe she did NOT use reasonable judgement. When you lift the ball an inch high, and move it sideways by almost an inch, that's not a reasonable effort to replace it in its original location. It could have been an effort to avoid an imperfection in the green, we'll never know for sure.

[DFS PFD]

Honest ignorance here, with an honest question, what organization was behind the Lexi Thompson ruling? That was the most atrocious decision I've heard about in professional golf, and painful to watch.

 

Honest, clear answer: it was the USGA.

 

And the USGA supplied a completely public accounting of the ruling, and the reaction, HERE. I commend it to you, straight up.

 

I thought it was the correct ruling. I have absolutely no problem, with any golf ruling as long as it is the right ruling. I don't care if it was caught by a tv assistant director, or a commentator, or a former USGA executive having a cocktail at home in Florida on his big-screen.

 

And by the way; what other sports league or front office is as transparent as the USGA?

I appreciate the transparency of the front office, and my understanding is that the ruling was in accordance to guidelines in place, the fault was the rule itself in my opinion. But I believe they revised that rule, correct? For what it's worth, not try to harp on the USGA, just looking for clarification on the situation as it's not something I followed closely.

[MilkyButterCuts]

It's cause Mike Davis is an idiot. No special exempt for Retif Goosen but gives one to Erie Els and Furyik. The setup at Shinnecock will be so hard and take the players 6 hours to play will be boring and unwatchable. Us open is the worst major.

They Gave Goosen one last year and he completely wasted it.

[15th Club]

Honest ignorance here, with an honest question, what organization was behind the Lexi Thompson ruling? That was the most atrocious decision I've heard about in professional golf, and painful to watch.

 

Honest, clear answer: it was the USGA.

 

And the USGA supplied a completely public accounting of the ruling, and the reaction, HERE. I commend it to you, straight up.

 

I thought it was the correct ruling. I have absolutely no problem, with any golf ruling as long as it is the right ruling. I don't care if it was caught by a tv assistant director, or a commentator, or a former USGA executive having a cocktail at home in Florida on his big-screen.

 

And by the way; what other sports league or front office is as transparent as the USGA?

I appreciate the transparency of the front office, and my understanding is that the ruling was in accordance to guidelines in place, the fault was the rule itself in my opinion. But I believe they revised that rule, correct? For what it's worth, not try to harp on the USGA, just looking for clarification on the situation as it's not something I followed closely.

 

Sure; but the title of the thread is, "What is with the hating on the USGA?"

 

The aspect involving rulings coming from observations of television coverage has indeed been revisited and revised by the USGA. I am not a fan of the USGA's compromise with popular sentiment (the popular sentiment opposed to any ruling from televised infractions) on this. I always thought that such rulings were interesting. I hate the idea of golf's ignoring certain information just because it came from a television replay monitor, or because a smart and informed person watching at home caught it.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Honest ignorance here, with an honest question, what organization was behind the Lexi Thompson ruling? That was the most atrocious decision I've heard about in professional golf, and painful to watch.

 

Honest, clear answer: it was the USGA.

 

And the USGA supplied a completely public accounting of the ruling, and the reaction, HERE. I commend it to you, straight up.

 

I thought it was the correct ruling. I have absolutely no problem, with any golf ruling as long as it is the right ruling. I don't care if it was caught by a tv assistant director, or a commentator, or a former USGA executive having a cocktail at home in Florida on his big-screen.

 

And by the way; what other sports league or front office is as transparent as the USGA?

 

Edit.; yes, the event was the ANA Inspiration, an LPGA-sanctioned event. That's probably a better answer, if you are asking who imposed the ruling. The Rules of Golf were obviously "behind the ruling." Too much USGA-defense on my mind this week, a/k/a "USGA Hateweek."

 

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

[caniac6]

For those who "hate" the USGA, can you suggest an alternative?

 

You hate the rules, too complicated. Have you read the new rules? They're MUCH easier to read, but I do wonder if they're enough to address all of the potential situations. But if not the USGA, who should write the rules of the game?

 

As for pro's who can't get the rules right, most of the mistakes are on the simplest things. Where can I drop when taking relief from a water hazard? Do I really have to put the ball back exactly where I lifted it? It seems that many pros have never learned the rules that most of us know by heart, they're too lazy to actually read them.

 

You hate the Handicap System, it either encourages sandbagging by allowing self-posting, or it doesn't allow you to post your solo rounds. It seems like they've split things down the middle, so there are complaints from both sides. But really, how would YOU run it, and who should have control if not the USGA?

 

We have a thread here covering 68 pages or more, asking if distance has ruined the PGA tour, but you find it ludicrous that the USGA is researching the effects of distance on golf. Have you gone to the USGA website, read some of the data collected so far? Should the USGA simply ignore a topic that's important enough to merit 68 pages of discussion here?

 

There's no question that the USGA has mis-handled some rule situations in their tournaments, and has made what turn out to be poor choices in courses and/or set-ups. Yet some posters here want to see MORE public courses used, courses like Chambers Bay and Erin Hills. Maybe we should just eliminate the US Open, along with the entire USGA. But what do you want to put in place to perform the jobs that really do need to be done?

How about the PGA of America? They seem to know what is really going on with golf and golfers.

[bladehunter]

Honest ignorance here, with an honest question, what organization was behind the Lexi Thompson ruling? That was the most atrocious decision I've heard about in professional golf, and painful to watch.

 

Honest, clear answer: it was the USGA.

 

And the USGA supplied a completely public accounting of the ruling, and the reaction, HERE. I commend it to you, straight up.

 

I thought it was the correct ruling. I have absolutely no problem, with any golf ruling as long as it is the right ruling. I don't care if it was caught by a tv assistant director, or a commentator, or a former USGA executive having a cocktail at home in Florida on his big-screen.

 

And by the way; what other sports league or front office is as transparent as the USGA?

 

Edit.; yes, the event was the ANA Inspiration, an LPGA-sanctioned event. That's probably a better answer, if you are asking who imposed the ruling. The Rules of Golf were obviously "behind the ruling." Too much USGA-defense on my mind this week, a/k/a "USGA Hateweek."

 

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.

 

Conspiracy theories floated by the usga outlined in this article. Even blamed he players. Called them “quitters “.

 

https://golfweek.com/2018/06/08/shinnecock-hills-left-major-legacy-on-golf-with-2004-u-s-open/amp/

[davep043]

 

I appreciate the transparency of the front office, and my understanding is that the ruling was in accordance to guidelines in place, the fault was the rule itself in my opinion. But I believe they revised that rule, correct? For what it's worth, not try to harp on the USGA, just looking for clarification on the situation as it's not something I followed closely.

For 2019, they have eliminated the two-stroke penalty for turning in an incorrect scorecard, when the cause is a penalty that was unknown to the player at the time. The rule says that the appropriate penalty will be added to the score as long as the infraction becomes known before the close of competition. If I remember right, the pro tours have decided that they won't take viewer call-ins, that they'll have staff monitoring video for infractions, and that any penalty issues will be decided before the end of each day, but I can't find that info with my 15-second search.

[davep043]

How about the PGA of America? They seem to know what is really going on with golf and golfers.

The PGA of America, or the PGA Tour? Two different organizations, two different missions. I don't have any huge beefs with either, but neither is perfect.

[North Butte]

If they seriously want to serve two incompatible purposes with the USGA Handicap System then they need to create two systems. If they want to list them side by side in GHIN that's up to them.

 

One system, to be used when golfers compete, should be based only on competitive rounds accompanied by a signed scorecard (or electronic equivalent) with the marker being someone known, contactable and verifiable within the system. No solo posting, no just-for-fun rounds, no playing and then typing in a number. Real, competition scores to general handicaps for use in real competitions.

 

The other system is for those who "don't compete" or want to "track their progress" or whatever other reason they may come up with for maintaining a handicap when they don't intend to actually use it to compete with other golfers. For that one, do things like they've been done the last 25 years. Everything goes, nothing is attested, solo rounds are fine, post whether you followed the Rules or putted out or whatever. Just type in a number and check to see if your index went up or down.

 

But if they insist on trying to please both handicap system users, they will continue to have a ridiculously over-complicated, under-validated system that is 100% open to both real and vanity sandbagging.

[DON SVO]

The aspect involving rulings coming from observations of television coverage has indeed been revisited and revised by the USGA. I am not a fan of the USGA's compromise with popular sentiment (the popular sentiment opposed to any ruling from televised infractions) on this. I always thought that such rulings were interesting. I hate the idea of golf's ignoring certain information just because it came from a television replay monitor, or because a smart and informed person watching at home caught it.

 

Oooooo, we've been down this road before!!!

 

[caniac6]

How about the PGA of America? They seem to know what is really going on with golf and golfers.

The PGA of America, or the PGA Tour? Two different organizations, two different missions. I don't have any huge beefs with either, but neither is perfect.

PGA of America

[DFS PFD]

I appreciate the transparency of the front office, and my understanding is that the ruling was in accordance to guidelines in place, the fault was the rule itself in my opinion. But I believe they revised that rule, correct? For what it's worth, not try to harp on the USGA, just looking for clarification on the situation as it's not something I followed closely.

For 2019, they have eliminated the two-stroke penalty for turning in an incorrect scorecard, when the cause is a penalty that was unknown to the player at the time. The rule says that the appropriate penalty will be added to the score as long as the infraction becomes known before the close of competition. If I remember right, the pro tours have decided that they won't take viewer call-ins, that they'll have staff monitoring video for infractions, and that any penalty issues will be decided before the end of each day, but I can't find that info with my 15-second search.

Thank you.

[ex0dus]

What was the point of the groove rule? Manufacturers were forced to change the way they make wedges, for what? To make the game harder for a handful of long hitting pros, or was it something else?

[15th Club]

Honest ignorance here, with an honest question, what organization was behind the Lexi Thompson ruling? That was the most atrocious decision I've heard about in professional golf, and painful to watch.

 

Honest, clear answer: it was the USGA.

 

And the USGA supplied a completely public accounting of the ruling, and the reaction, HERE. I commend it to you, straight up.

 

I thought it was the correct ruling. I have absolutely no problem, with any golf ruling as long as it is the right ruling. I don't care if it was caught by a tv assistant director, or a commentator, or a former USGA executive having a cocktail at home in Florida on his big-screen.

 

And by the way; what other sports league or front office is as transparent as the USGA?

 

Edit.; yes, the event was the ANA Inspiration, an LPGA-sanctioned event. That's probably a better answer, if you are asking who imposed the ruling. The Rules of Golf were obviously "behind the ruling." Too much USGA-defense on my mind this week, a/k/a "USGA Hateweek."

 

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.

[North Butte]

What was the point of the groove rule? Manufacturers were forced to change the way they make wedges, for what? To make the game harder for a handful of long hitting pros, or was it something else?

 

Yes, that was the point.

 

And it did not, as it turned out, make the game any harder for Tour pros after all. So it was literally for nothing. Like in Macbeth, it was "...a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

[15th Club]

What was the point of the groove rule? Manufacturers were forced to change the way they make wedges, for what? To make the game harder for a handful of long hitting pros, or was it something else?

 

You said that the groove rule was "a joke." And I am asking why you think it was a joke. I presumed that it was more to you, than just an initiative that you disagreed with. Or, maybe that is all it is. But you said it was "a joke," and I am asking why it was a "joke."

[MilkyButterCuts]

IMO the only thing the USGA handled wrong was the DJ situation. Other than that, they are tasked with a very difficult job. Put yourselves in their shoes, how would you handle any of these situations? Lexi cheated, plain and simple. Chambers bay, (I liked the course) was "too hard" so we got Erin Hills last year, which had the potential to be a GREAT US Open course - however due to bitching, whining, and moaning it was ruined with cut back fesque, rough, and over watered fairways and greens. Yes they had a lot of rain but you don't think the USGA had a clue it was coming? They gave the people and players what they wanted there, and it was "too easy".

 

As PM said, there is a very fine line between providing the greatest test in golf and a cat & mouse course. I personally like to see the players b**** and moan. I want the USGA to crank these greens up to a 15 and dry them out. Why? Because its 1 week out of the year where IT IS UNFAIR.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Honest ignorance here, with an honest question, what organization was behind the Lexi Thompson ruling? That was the most atrocious decision I've heard about in professional golf, and painful to watch.

 

Honest, clear answer: it was the USGA.

 

And the USGA supplied a completely public accounting of the ruling, and the reaction, HERE. I commend it to you, straight up.

 

I thought it was the correct ruling. I have absolutely no problem, with any golf ruling as long as it is the right ruling. I don't care if it was caught by a tv assistant director, or a commentator, or a former USGA executive having a cocktail at home in Florida on his big-screen.

 

And by the way; what other sports league or front office is as transparent as the USGA?

 

Edit.; yes, the event was the ANA Inspiration, an LPGA-sanctioned event. That's probably a better answer, if you are asking who imposed the ruling. The Rules of Golf were obviously "behind the ruling." Too much USGA-defense on my mind this week, a/k/a "USGA Hateweek."

 

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.

 

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

[FKA HB]

I have no problem with the USGA. They are more than pro golf and from my vantage point as an amateur, they are doing just fine. Don't care about the pros and their gripes for one week. The groove rule seemed like a non-event, anchored putting was an abomination that needed to be called out as cheating. The one complaint I have with them is that they tried to accommodate the pros after 2004. They should have just told all the pros to suck it up. "The US Open is meant to be hard. Life isn't fair. You get to go back to playing cushy soft setups the next week."

They maintain the rules of golf and maintain the handicap system. That's all I ask them to do.

[bladehunter]

Honest ignorance here, with an honest question, what organization was behind the Lexi Thompson ruling? That was the most atrocious decision I've heard about in professional golf, and painful to watch.

 

Honest, clear answer: it was the USGA.

 

And the USGA supplied a completely public accounting of the ruling, and the reaction, HERE. I commend it to you, straight up.

 

I thought it was the correct ruling. I have absolutely no problem, with any golf ruling as long as it is the right ruling. I don't care if it was caught by a tv assistant director, or a commentator, or a former USGA executive having a cocktail at home in Florida on his big-screen.

 

And by the way; what other sports league or front office is as transparent as the USGA?

 

Edit.; yes, the event was the ANA Inspiration, an LPGA-sanctioned event. That's probably a better answer, if you are asking who imposed the ruling. The Rules of Golf were obviously "behind the ruling." Too much USGA-defense on my mind this week, a/k/a "USGA Hateweek."

 

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.

 

 

See my edit above for the article that outlines it. THey even called the players quitters.

 

 

 

Look. I do not hate the usga at its core. I found the testing lab to be well run and very accessible when I’ve had to use it for irons to be tested. Very nice folks I’ve spoken and worked with.

 

But. That doesn’t mean that the leaders of that great membership aren’t clueless. Or maybe more accurate. Very calculated in their attempts to continue their cronyism, yet pretty transparent at the same time.

 

Here’s a conspiracy I’ve just realized.

 

The Cat who is he superintendent at Shinnecock. Now. He was the guy who set the pin on the seventh on Sunday at Shinnecock 04. And was responsible for that green. Sometime between now and then he became super at the Chicago golf club. And now super at Shinnecock. Hmmm. Both original usga founding clubs. Hmmmm. Why would you promote the guy who was in he center of that fiasco so many times ? Hmmm. To keep him quiet ? To keep the “ team “ together ? I don’t know. Just found it pretty odd.

[ex0dus]

What was the point of the groove rule? Manufacturers were forced to change the way they make wedges, for what? To make the game harder for a handful of long hitting pros, or was it something else?

 

You said that the groove rule was "a joke." And I am asking why you think it was a joke. I presumed that it was more to you, than just an initiative that you disagreed with. Or, maybe that is all it is. But you said it was "a joke," and I am asking why it was a "joke."

 

 

Changing a rule for maufacturers and millions of players because you don't like the style of play from a handful of pros is a joke. Clear enough for you?

[QMany]

Rationalizing the debacle at Shinnecock on the usual scapegoat, the big bad ball boogeyman. That’s rich.

[15th Club]

...

...

...

...

 

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

 

 

Pretty much, yeah. I haven't given it much thought since then. If the feeling was that the damage done was damage to Johnson's confidence and psyche and self-control by informing him of the ruling under consideration, it didn't much matter, did it? If the question was, was it an incident that revealed some kind of insular arrogance of the USGA, that too was blown up by several things. One was that by informing Johnson early, the USGA was trying to make it as clear as possible as early as possible what they were considering. In response to other 'notification' kerfuffles.' But the USGA regretted that, and openly said so if I am recalling correctly. I think the ruling itself was a close call; I recall being torn about it. I wasn't exactly sure. That happens in sports, doesn't it? Close calls? And then in the end the USGA has taken steps to try to better deal with that entire scenario in the future.

 

I don't know; is "Dustin Johnson" the worst thing anybody can come up with, regarding the USGA? Personally, I think it is a non-issue which is why I'm probably not the best person to ask on that one.

 

Do you want this to be a trap question for me? I think if you asked the USGA itself about the Dustin Johnson case, their answer would be something like, "We are dissatisfied with how that occurred, and we want to avoid it in the future..."

[15th Club]

Rationalizing the debacle at Shinnecock on the usual scapegoat, the big bad ball boogeyman. That's rich.

 

 

Hey, I think I made it clear what the case was. Tom Meeks of the USGA took full blame. And that is fine with me. And yeah; I want to assure you in no uncertain terms how little I care, if I rub some guys the wrong way at GolfWRX in saying, look at the distance problem in many related US Open issues. I am definitely saying that. And the people to whom I most want to say it, are the guys who don't believe it and need to hear it.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

...

...

...

...

 

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

 

 

Pretty much, yeah. I haven't given it much thought since then. If the feeling was that the damage done was damage to Johnson's confidence and psyche and self-control by informing him of the ruling under consideration, it didn't much matter, did it? If the question was, was it an incident that revealed some kind of insular arrogance of the USGA, that too was blown up by several things. One was that by informing Johnson early, the USGA was trying to make it as clear as possible as early as possible what they were considering. In response to other 'notification' kerfuffles.' But the USGA regretted that, and openly said so if I am recalling correctly. I think the ruling itself was a close call; I recall being torn about it. I wasn't exactly sure. That happens in sports, doesn't it? Close calls? And then in the end the USGA has taken steps to try to better deal with that entire scenario in the future.

 

I don't know; is "Dustin Johnson" the worst thing anybody can come up with, regarding the USGA? Personally, I think it is a non-issue which is why I'm probably not the best person to ask on that one.

 

Do you want this to be a trap question for me? I think if you asked the USGA itself about the Dustin Johnson case, their answer would be something like, "We are dissatisfied with how that occurred, and we want to avoid it in the future..."

 

I was just wondering if you agreed with how the USGA handled it.

I'm glad to learn that you think they handled it just fine.

[15th Club]

What was the point of the groove rule? Manufacturers were forced to change the way they make wedges, for what? To make the game harder for a handful of long hitting pros, or was it something else?

 

You said that the groove rule was "a joke." And I am asking why you think it was a joke. I presumed that it was more to you, than just an initiative that you disagreed with. Or, maybe that is all it is. But you said it was "a joke," and I am asking why it was a "joke."

 

 

Changing a rule for maufacturers and millions of players because you don't like the style of play from a handful of pros is a joke. Clear enough for you?

 

Uh, okay. So you disagree. Got it. The USGA has boxes of data on how different wedges spin. But what was the problem with "changing a rule for manufacturers and millions of players"? No one basically got forced into buying anything new. Manufacturers had plenty of time to change.

 

And it isn't about "a handful of pros." It has been phased in carefully to cover all of elite-level golf. So you're wrong about that.

 

I disagree with you. Does that make you "a joke"?

[15th Club]

...

...

...

...

 

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

 

 

Pretty much, yeah. I haven't given it much thought since then. If the feeling was that the damage done was damage to Johnson's confidence and psyche and self-control by informing him of the ruling under consideration, it didn't much matter, did it? If the question was, was it an incident that revealed some kind of insular arrogance of the USGA, that too was blown up by several things. One was that by informing Johnson early, the USGA was trying to make it as clear as possible as early as possible what they were considering. In response to other 'notification' kerfuffles.' But the USGA regretted that, and openly said so if I am recalling correctly. I think the ruling itself was a close call; I recall being torn about it. I wasn't exactly sure. That happens in sports, doesn't it? Close calls? And then in the end the USGA has taken steps to try to better deal with that entire scenario in the future.

 

I don't know; is "Dustin Johnson" the worst thing anybody can come up with, regarding the USGA? Personally, I think it is a non-issue which is why I'm probably not the best person to ask on that one.

 

Do you want this to be a trap question for me? I think if you asked the USGA itself about the Dustin Johnson case, their answer would be something like, "We are dissatisfied with how that occurred, and we want to avoid it in the future..."

 

I was just wondering if you agreed with how the USGA handled it.

I'm glad to learn that you think they handled it just fine.

 

I wrote what I wrote, Ashley Schaeffer. That is what I think.

[OffTheDole]

They are going to "do something about the ball" real soon now. I predict that when they do, it will be the beginning of the end of USGA's relevance as anything beyond an organization that sponsors some tournaments. They will have finally squandered their last vestige of relevance to the mainstream of the game if they roll the ball performance back by something like 20%, whether for everyone or try to do it just as "elite competitive events".

 

Agreed on the likely after-effects of a ball "rollback."

 

The professional tours will take the rules they like and apply them as they wish, ignoring the equipment restrictions on the ball (and maybe putters). The PGA & European Tours don't need the USGA / R&A, and it wouldn't be a shock to see a schism between those organizations if Mike Davis pushes too hard.

[AceCatKY]

The PGA of America, or PGA Tour, or combination of both should just cut the legs out from under the USGA and promulgate their own rules of the game for PGA Tour and recreational play and maintain a handicap system/app. PGA Tour manages the US Open/qualifying; the USGA can still run the truly amateur events or just let them maintain some museums or something.