The previous post, What Does the New Equitable Stroke Control Mean for Golf?, struck a
responsive chord at Golf Digest. Jerry Tarde, editor of Golf Digest, lifted many parts of the paper for his column entitled
“A formula for slow play and higher scores.”[1] Tarde used the material without either
attribution or compensation (if you don’t count an autographed copy of a book
he had ghost written for Sam Snead).
I
did not take offense, however, for here was a major golf publication at least
questioning the USGA. I was further
encouraged when Golf Digest implied
it would be conducting an independent review of ESC93. In a letter to Mr. Tarde, I urged:
"Golf Digest to demand to see the three
studies the USGA claimed supported
ESC93. I believe you will find that while the USGA will trumpet the
findings of studies supporting their position, they will not make these studies
available for peer review. I hope you
will be made privy to these studies so Golf
Digest could come to an independent and informed evaluation of the new ESC
procedure. [2]
I was to be greatly disappointed by Golf Digest’s effort. Golf
Digest assigned the story to Guy Yocom.
Yocom did not review any USGA study, and his article was simply a
listing of unchallenged replies by Dean Knuth, Director of Handicapping for the
USGA.[3] Yocom’s article lacked insight and
demonstrated an interview style better suited to People Magazine. An example will demonstrate Yocom’s
deficiency:
Question
by Yocom: Since even low handicappers now can score a 6 on a par 3, won’t this
be a boon for sandbaggers?
Knuth:
No…Par 3s are where golfers receive the fewest number of handicap strokes,
where 99 percent of players are likely to try their hardest to score well.
Now there are two problems with
Knuth’s reply. First, there is no reason
to believe a golfer’s effort on a hole is related to whether he gets a handicap
stroke. Second, and more importantly,
Knuth is charging that 99 percent of all golfers are unethical since they
violate the basic precept of the handicap system that “every player will
endeavor to make the best score he can at each hole.”[4] Knuth’s defense rests on the lack of
integrity of the American golfer. Poor
Yocom did not identify either problem.[5]
Yocom did a follow-up article that
was equally unsatisfactory. He even made
a small technical error in trying to explain why the ESC was changed. When I pointed out the error, it was
apparently too much for Yocom. He wrote:
"Just a
crazy, giddy guess on my part, but is there a Dealey Plaza (where you live)…Has
your company conducted any research on the subject (ESC). I would be glad to look it over, as you must
have some basis for your persistent opinion opposing the new ESC."[6]
I had to respond
in a letter to Jerry Tarde:[7]
"Though he
does not write with great clarity, Yocom seems to liken me to Lee Harvey
Oswald. I find this personally offensive
and beyond the pale of responsible debate.
It is unfortunate when a representative of your fine magazine does not
bring intelligence or insight to an issue, but only personal invective.
Mr. Yocom
claims that I oppose ESC. He apparently
had not read my paper. What I oppose is
change that does not represent progress.
I do not believe the USGA proved any substantive benefit from the new
ESC…The new ESC may be a success as (the USGA) claims. That judgment, however, should have rested
upon an independent evaluation of the data Yocom had promised in March. Yocom’s January article failed to deliver on
that promise."
The net result was Yocom still gets
a press pass to the U.S. Open, and I canceled my subscription to Golf digest.
Despite
the USGA claims of great support, ESC93 did not make many people happy. The USGA was to try a different ESC in 1997. Currently, ESC consists of a hybrid
system. Low handicappers are now allowed
to take a double bogey on any hole. This
was in answer to the many complaints that taking a 6 on a par five was not
equitable. All handicaps of ten and
above have the same limits as ESC93. No
research was ever published on why low handicap players should be treated
differently than high handicapped players.
It appears the USGA Handicap Procedure Committee was only responding to
a political problem with low handicapped players rather than seeking a just
solution to the ESC problem. Given the
track history of this most political institution, such a resolution should come
as no surprise.
[1]
Jerry Tarde, “A formula for slow play and higher scores,” Golf Digest, Trumbull, CT, June 1993.
[2]
Letter from the author to Jerry Tarde, January 15, 1993.
[3]
Guy Yocom, “Why your handicap will change this year,” Golf Digest, Trumbull, CT, March 1993
[4]
USGA Handicap Manual, p. 1
[5]
Yocom has no technical background and could not review any studies if the USGA
gave them to him. His principle
background is that of ghost writer. He
wrote a book with Corey Pavin on shotmaking shortly before Mr. Pavin’s career
started to ebb.
Therefore, the lack of analysis and evaluation is the fault of those at Golf Digest who assigned Yocom to this
inquiry.
[6]
Letter to the author from Guy Yocom, December 15, 1993
[7]
Letter from the author to Jerry Tarde, December 27, 1993.
No comments:
Post a Comment