Groovy

1.  "Professional players of all ages" within the USGA sphere of influence totals, what, five figures tops if you count club professionals?  How many amateurs are there?  How many weekend golfers are there?  The rules of this game apply to everyone.  Are we seriously dictating equipment changes for 99.99% to reign in the 0.01%?

2.  "All of them had the belief...".  Yeah, right.  They all offered the opinion that the game is too easy and the USGA should do something to make it harder. 

3.  "Too easy to control the ball from rough."  Come again?  I can't remember the last time I "controlled" the ball from deep rough.  I can't remember the last time I spun the ball from the rough and it was probably an accident anyway.  Irregardless of the state of my skills, I seriously doubt that square grooves provide an advantage to any but professionals and very top amateurs.  See #1.

The more I read, the more I play this game, the more I consider this sort of thing, the more I find the USGA to be an elitist body perched atop an ivory tower.  They're becoming irrelevant to the casual golfer and if they ban equipment that makes this game easier for the 25 'capper they'll seal the deal.

So much for "no rants" eh?   

I don't know this answer; it may backfire on me.  What's the average score over a round of golf in the USA?  What was it 20 years ago?

Are you a better player now than you were 20 years ago?  I think you've offered that answer previously.

Par is an arbitrary figure.  Why so sacred?  +10 or -20, everyone has to beat the field?  And very few percentage wise, even today, break 90.

You know me Clive.  The RoG are sacred to me - seriously.  Yet I lean further and further toward finding one of the governing bodies completely useless.  Why is that?  They're framing the game in such a technical way and with such a focus on the professional and/or top amateur.  Most American golfers already don't give a flier about the rules.  How are they going to react when the gear they bought last year at Golf Galaxy is illegal or even grandfathered legal.  They're going to say piss off.

I'm not sure what this answer is going to get me or what side it supports, but...over the last even 30 years the average score for the average player has not improved significantly even with all these whiz bang titanium, infused metal, higher moi lower gravity yada, yada, yada, technological advancements.

In the hands of the professionals, different story.  And they haven't improved their scoring very much (something 1 or 2 strokes per round?).

This has been the biggest difference in the past few decades, the ball is out of control, it's making great courses obsolete.

Clive, I agree with you.  Comparing eras is fairly futile.  Bobby vs. Ben vs. Jack vs. Tiger just doesn't work.  However, we have nothing else to go by.  The USGA specifically says the game is becoming diminished by technology.  They suggest vague anecdotal evidence and imply scientific analysis proves their point but don't offer it other than in summary.  In challenging that we might throw out the stuff I've mentioned here tonight.  At the end of the day it comes down to opinion with perhaps no way for either side to prove their point.  Certainly there's no overwhelming evidence one way or another.

That being the case, why the fuss? 

For all intense purposes I agree, supposably.

 

I thought Fay's comments were fairly ludicrous, given that they were made at the U.S. Open where I doubt that a single iron shot was  "easy to control from the rough".
And the analogy to radial tires is lost on me. Radial tires are too easy to control? Too groovy? Good in the rough?