Another point from Phil that seemed to go unnoticed.
PA-PLAYA āI struggle with some of our governing bodies. I struggle with it because we're the only professional sport in the world that is governed by a group of amateurs, and that leads to some questionable directions that we go down. I wish that we had people that are involved in the sport professionally to be in charge a little bit more.ā
Granted, I don't know whether he's right or wrong about that. But there's definitely a historical pattern with how the USGA has governed over the years. Even in the rare instances in which they've outwardly solicited input from the professional organizations regarding the changing or modifying of rules and certain equipment standards, they've ultimately gone through with their original intent prior to submitting feedback. And they've done this not because Joe the weekend golfer finds the game too easy and boring, but because players who are highly skilled enough to earn millions of dollars plying their trades are playing the game differently from how it used to be played during the preceding eras. As has been argued, the scoring itself hasn't changed dramatically over the years.
Of course, they (the USGA) might argue that the only reason scoring has remained consistent during this time is because the golf courses on the pro circuit have been lengthened to account for how far the pros are hitting the ball compared to those earlier eras. But who really knows? With an ever-changing climate playing a role in a sport played outdoors, who really knows if that's a valid argument? What about the difference in agronomy and course conditions? Were the pros back in the 60's, 70's, and 80's hitting drivers and landing balls on fairways nipped shorter than billiard tables? One thing that stands out to me when I watch the replays of majors from 20+ years ago on YouTube or a rerun on a slow day on TGC, the balls didn't roll forward like they do today once they land after the tee shot. The greens appeared to be a lot firmer and less receptive back then, too.
I have a friend who is the owner of a very nice golf course about a mile from my house. From the very back tees it measures 6800 yards. In the 20 years I've known him, and in the several years I worked for him as an assistant during that time, not once did he ever consider the need to lengthen the layout. In fact, about 10 years ago he solicited feedback from his customers via a survey about the overall playability of his golf course. After reading the many comments and listening to his professional staff, he made a decision to actually move the tee boxes forward, to shorten the layout in hopes of making it more fair and playable to the regulars who pay money out of their own pockets to play there. Imagine that... someone actually concerned about making a very difficult game less difficult and more enjoyable for the very people who determine whether the local course makes enough money to stay open...
My friend is concerned about numbers alright. Just not the ones the USGA are concerned about. His livelihood revolves around numbers. The number of hotdogs sold, the number of beers sold, the number of balls and tees sold. The number of cars in the parking lot, and the number of rounds played. It hasn't occurred to him once to be concerned about his customers hitting the ball too far, or adding another tee box to make his course longer.
What does it say when touring professionals earning 7-figure paychecks seem more concerned about the game at the grassroots level than the USGA seems to be most of the time?