The Pellucid Perspective - February 2020 - 7

What bothers me the most is that the Distance
dilemma appears to simply be another
platform for addressing the "sustainability
issues" that the USGA and R&A have chosen
as a major area of emphasis.

a tournament for "elite" amateurs and/or professionals? "The
USGA found that many amateurs play from a set of tees that
is too long for them" (Dylan Dethier, Golf.com, 20/04/2020);
so are we talking about them or the elite amateurs/professionals? Fortunately, the Report rightly concludes there are no easy
answers.
The golfer survey results, as un-balanced as they may be, also
are rightfully confusing. The same audience of older viewers
(20+ years of watching tournaments) that like to watch birdies
and prodigious drives also enjoy seeing the elite players screw
up. Even elite amateur Tony Romo was laughing at himself
when he went from a greenside beach onto the real beach last
Saturday. These ironies also underscore the fact that there are no
easy answers.
What bothers me the most is that the Distance dilemma appears to simply be another platform for addressing the "sustainability issues" that the USGA and R&A have chosen as a major
area of emphasis. There are some generalizations in the Report,
most notably regarding water usage and costs and the relative
cost of maintaining greens, tees, fairways and bunkers that are
misleading at best. They continue to imply that the golf industry
has been environmentally irresponsible in its past and that part
of their mission is to re-educate golfers as to what constitutes
"good" golf course conditions.
While I have met a few superintendents who were spending more than they had to and a few owners (and/or Boards)
that pursued "pristine" to the extreme; the vast majority of both
owners and superintendents are dedicated to the efficient use of
water, chemicals, mechanical inputs and manpower. Not only
is it a matter of economic practicality; but as Wayne Otto (the
Wee One of GCSAA lore and charity) once taught me - sound
agronomic practices greatly reduce the need for chemical inputs
and environmental responsibility is a great and natural byproduct.
There are a few other inherent contradictions regarding the
sustainability issue. What will be the impact of reduced water
usage on "faster and firmer" fairways? It will be great for older
golfers trying to maintain distance; but add to the distances for
elite golfers at the same time. What happens when financially
strapped governments use water costs as a disproportionate
source of new revenue as the inclusion of water costs in California in the Report show? What should happen when a golf
course chooses to use public municipal water as opposed to the
cost of a permitted private well?
Maybe the most instructive example of all these issues can
be found at Oakmont, the host course of the most US Opens.
www.PellucidCorp.com

The 1927 yardage was 6,929 and 7,216 in 2016 (+4.1%) and the
average scores were 78.6 and 73.6 (-6.4%). If I used 2007, those
percentages would be +4.3% and -3.7%. These stats confirm
Mike Davis' contention that golf course evolution represents a
Darwinian reaction to Distance that has been going on for the
last 100 years, or at least 89 in the case of Oakmont. It also indicates that golf course conditions other than length can make
a golf course difficult.
The more important issue is that the Oakmont greens "stimped" at 13 in 1973 and again in 2016 (Golf Digest) and why
the cost of producing that same result escalated at 3X the rate of
inflation. We assume that Oakmont was one of the 37 courses
used in their chart in the Distance Report; and if it wasn't we'll
rest our case about some of the data presented as fact. Absent
that, we also have similar first hand data for another venue hosting significant USGA events over a 40 year span where costs
did increase at the high rate exhibited in the USGA chart.
Ultimately, we end up with far more questions than answers.
The sustainability that gives the vast majority of non-elite golfers increased distance on fast and firm fairways exascerbates the
Distance problem for elite players. Increasing fairway heights
and providing moist fairways would alleviate some distance issues (see the chart on "wet conditions") at elite tournaments;
but that runs counter to the pursuit of sustainability.
We apparently once knew how to produce fast greens at a
much lower cost in "real" dollar terms. Where is the USGA
Greens Section of the early 1980's that was focused on the efficient, practical and environmentally responsible delivery of
good playing conditions? Quietly disbanded after a 30 year
detour into the development of well-intended but costly and
environmentally irresponsible greens specifications.
At least this dazzling compilation of data points out all the
contradictions inherent in the Distance issue. In spite of being unbalanced and insular; and some might say sexist in light
of the date discrepancies of the female data; it's going to be
virtually impossible to please everybody no matter what solutions they eventually propose. Tougher playing conditions with
fewer birdies and shorter drives for the TV audience? Additional equipment limits or bifurcation? Maybe we'll get a hint
when we see how lush the roughs and how fast the greens will
n
be at Winged Foot.
" You've been up all night listening for his drum
Hoping that the righteous might just come
I heard the General whisper to his aide-de-camp
"Be watchful for Mohammed's lamp"
The Pellucid Perspective

http://www.Golf.com http://www.PellucidcorP.com

The Pellucid Perspective - February 2020

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of The Pellucid Perspective - February 2020