Re: Intrigue at Golf House -- US Golfers Are Not Opinionated Troublemakers

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 16:11:18 09/17/99 Fri
Author: Bill Boehm
Subject: Re: Intrigue at Golf House
In reply to: Duncan Mackenzie 's message, "Intrigue at Golf House" on 12:09:51 09/17/99 Fri

for anyone that is interested, here's a copy that I made of the original Deep Throat reply that was on the usga discussion group and then removed (I had copied it from the usga discussion group on Thursday, 9/16/99 @ 5:51 p.m. PDT; 8:51 p.m. EDT):

----

Guys,

This comment may have the half-life of a raindrop on the sun, but what the heck.

You all are missing the point.

You're focusing on technical aspects of the USGA Handicap System and ideals (sensible stuff). Instead, I suggest that you follow the money. Here's a snippet of what's going on.

According to David Fay, Executive Director of the USGA, "We got into the business of computing handicaps at the specific request of golf associations who were concerned about dealing with commercial service bureaus whose commitment to the business might or might not be long term. I recall this very clearly - I was working at the Metropolitan Golf Association, and my boss (Jim McLoughlin) representing both the MGA and IAGA, made the proposal to the USGA Executive Committee that the USGA consider offering a handicap computation service." Furthermore, according to Reg Murphy, former USGA President, "The USGA provides GHIN service because it serves to strengthen golf associations."

The USGA is so committed to this end that they continued GHIN even though it didn't have a single profitable year in its first decade of operation. And, overall, GHIN is in the red several million dollars since its inception (certainly funded by tax-free US Open profits). This may be one for you non-profit "related vs. unrelated" income buffs.

The USGA will only sell its GHIN products/services to regional/state (amateur) golf associations, and has done so at a fee that has historically been in the vicinity of $3 per golfer per year. The USGA will not sell GHIN directly to a golf club (though golf clubs can issue USGA Handicap Indexes). Amateur associations then provide (tie) the USGA/GHIN service as a part of a club/golfer membership fee (generally ranging from $5 to $30 per golfer per year). The net difference is pocketed by the regional/state associations and is used to enhance their other operations (certainly to the benefit of the USGA as these are the "USGA licensed" associations that run the US Open Qualifiers, etc...).

Serving golfers and golf clubs is a secondary consideration of GHIN. This suggests a serious conflict of interest, because what may be in the best interest of golf may not necessarily be in the best interest of GHIN and those who they serve.

More to the point - if the USGA relaxes their stance on peer review and lets individual golfers use the USGA Handicap formula (a standard for which the USGA claims intellectual property rights and which they deny to individuals), or, allows golfers to sign up and post over the Internet, it may then necessitate the redefinition of a "golf club". This would not do, because it is golf clubs (in their traditional sense) that subscribe to the services of regional/state associations and thus provide the revenue stream the USGA desires - money to regional/state associations through handicapping services for the purpose of strenthening the associations.

To further illustrate the serious conflict of interest that exists, since the early 80's, the Director of the USGA Handicap Department and the Director of GHIN have always been the same person - first Dean Knuth and now Kevin O'Connor. Also, executive directors and officers/governors of regional/state golf associations have populated the USGA Handicap Procedures Committees. And, most importantly(and more often than not), the USGA GHIN Committee and the USGA Handicap Committee have been populated with a single majority of USGA Executive Committee persons (in fact early on they were both combined into a single committee). Generally, you would find fewer relationships at a family reunion.

The bottom line is simple - a standards setting organization is also and industry competitor. If a change in the USGA Handicap System is not in the best interest of GHIN, which then is not in the best interest of regional/state golf associations, then it probably won't happen. Not unless the money continues to flow in the direction the USGA desires.

Good luck finding the rest of the story. --- Hint: follow the money, follow the money, follow the money.

P.S. This may also be why 90% of golfers do not carry a handicap - because their monty is not flowing in the direction the USGA desires. Otherwise, why be so stingy about a mathematical formula?

One more: When USGA Handicap Department employees answer questions in this discussion group, they are being less then generous when suggesting they don't have access to GHIN golfer records or statistical information. Their boss, Kevin O'Connor, is also the boss of every GHIN employee, as they are all employees of the USGA.

Good Bye!

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]