USGA JOURNAL AND TURF MANAGEMENT FREE LIFT OR NOT? The answer to this and many other Rules questions can be found in a new USGA publication “Golf Rules in Pic­ tures.” See page 4 of this issue. APRIL, 1962 CS6A JOURNAL AND TURF MANAGEMENT Published by the United States Golf Association 1962 by United States Golf Association. Permission to reprint articles or material in the USGA Journal and Turf Management is granted to publishers of newspapers, periodicals and books (unless specifically noted otherwise), provided credit is given to the USGA and copyright protection is af­ forded. Neither articles nor other material may be copied or used for any advertising, promotion or commercial purpose. VOL. XV, No. 1 APRIL, 1962 Through the Green ___________________________________________ 1 “Golf Rules in Pictures” A New USGA Publication ____________________ 4 The Rule About Expenses for Amateurs _____________ Philip H. Strubing 6 Golf Executives Exchange Thoughts in Conferences _____ Eddie L. Ervin, Jr. 8 79 Courses Required to Determine Open Field _______________________ 13 National Golf Day Scheduled for June 2 ___________________________ 15 Course Modernization _________________________________________ 19 The Referee: Decisions Under the Rules of Golf _____________________ 21 Turf Management ____________________________________________ 24 It’s Your Honor: Letters 33 Published seven times a year in February, April, June, July, August, September and November by the UNITED STATES GOLF ASSOCIATION 40 EAST 38th St., NEW YORK 16, N. Y. Subscription: $2 a year. Single copies: 30f. Subscriptions, articles, photographs, and correspondence should be sent to the above address. Second Class Postage Paid at New York, N. Y., and Pinehurst, N. C. Editor: Joseph C. Dey, Jr. Managing Editor: Eddie L. Ervin, Jr. All articles voluntarily contributed. USGA COMPETITIONS FOR 1962 Championship or Team Match Entries Close Qualifying Rounds Dates of Event Location Open May 2 Local—May 21 ••Sectional—June 5 Women’s Open June 13 — June 14-15-16 June 28-29-30 Amateur Public Links •May 31 iJune 17-24 July 9-14 Junior Amateur June 27 July 17 Aug. 1-4 (1) Curtis Cup Match — — Girls’ Junior Aug. 3 — Women’s Amateur Aug. 8 — Aug. 17-18 Aug. 20-24 Aug. 27-Sept. 1 C. C. of Rochester, Rochester, N. Y. Amateur Aug. 15 tSept. 4 or 5 Sept. 17-22 Senior Amateur Aug. 29 Sept. 13 (2) World Amateur Team — — Senior Women’s Amateur Oct 3 — Oct. 1-6 Oct. 10-13 Oct. 17-19 Pinehurst Country Club, Pinehurst, N. C. Evanston Golf Club, Skokie, Ill. Fuji Golf Course, Kawana, Japan Manufacturers’ Golf & Country Club, Oreland, Pa. ** Open Championship: Date of Sectional Qualifying Championships may be changed to Monday, June 4 if local authority in charge deems advisable. Amateur Public Links Championship: ‘Entries close with each Sectional Qualifying Chairman, t Exact date in each Section to be fixed by Sectional Chairman. (1) Curtis Cup Match: Women’s amateur teams—British Isles vs. United States. (2) World Amateur Team Championship: Men’s amateur teams. Oakmont Country Club, Oakmont, Pa. Dunes Golf & Beach Club Myrtle Beach, S. C. Sheridan Park Golf Course, Tonawanda, N. Y. Lochmoor Club, Grosse Pointe Woods, Mich. Broadmoor Golf Club, Colorado Springs, Colo. C. C. of Buffalo, Williamsville, N. Y. ONE CODE OF RULES By TOTTON P. HEFFELFINGER Former President, United States Golf Association In approaching the golf rules question, certain fundamental, common sense philosophies should first be discussed thoroughly. Can we first agree that the men and women who are guiding golf in this country, both amateur and professional, are solely interested in what is best for the game some of us play for fun, health and recreation, and some of us play as a profession and a livelihood, but all of us love. If we can assume this, then isn’t it axiomatic that those who guide the game abroad, where the game originated, have only the same motive? Next, let us determine what is best for the game. Will golf be better served by having several sets of rules, one set for the amateurs, one set for the professionals, different codes in the various countries of the world, etc.? Or is our game better served by having one world-wide code? It must be. Assuming that we all are only interested in what is best for golf, and that one code is vital to that, let us next determine how we must go about it to get this one world-wide code and to maintain it. It is, of course, necessary to seek out all the ideas the golfer may have about the rules. Some will not like stroke and distance for out of bounds, some will. Some will want one-stroke penalty or no penalty for certain violations. Some will want a larger cup or a gyro putter. Others will want a ball that can be hit farther or a club that will accomplish this. Some will want 15 or 16 clubs and others 12 or 13, and so on ad infinitum. It is, of course, obvious that it is impossible to satisfy everyone. Who, then, is going to be held responsible for making the final determination on the world wide code? Has the game grown and prospered down through the decades, so that millions of people acquire health, wealth and friendship in its play? Of course. Has all of this just happened? No. Have many men here and abroad studied for years unselfishly to develop the Rules of Golf? Yes. Has there been any gain to these men, except the satisfaction of a job well done? Of course there is only one answer—NO! If we golfers, male and female, amateur or professional, can accept these golf philosophies as common sense, then certainly the USGA in this country and the R and A in Great Britain, working with the parent bodies of golf throughout the world, will have a nearly unanimous mandate from all golf to write and maintain a world-wide code of Rules, which we will all play by. USGA JOURNAL AND TURF MANAGEMENT: APRIL, 1962 1 Senior Women's Championship The first Women’s Senior Amateur Championship of the USGA will be played at the Manufacturers’ Golf and Country Club, Oreland, Pa., in the Phil­ adelphia suburbs, October 17-18-19, 1962. The tournament will be at 54 holes stroke play, one round per day. It will be open to women who have reached their 50th birthday and are members of USGA Regular Member Clubs. The field will be limited to 120 players. Entries will be accepted from the appli­ cants with the lowest handicaps up to a maximum of 15 strokes; any tie in the highest acceptable handicap class will be selected by lot. Mrs. Theodore W. Hawes, of Summit, N. J., has been appointed Chairman of the Senior Women’s Championship Com­ mittee by John M. Winters, Jr., Presi­ dent of the USGA. Arrangements for the first Champion­ ship have been made in short order. A proposal to institute the event was made late in January of this year by the USGA Women’s Committee. It was readily agreed to entertain the tournament through an invitation from Adolph Woll, Jr., President. The Senior Women’s event is the ninth national championship in the USGA pro­ gram, which also includes four interna­ tional events. "Putter Plaster" Not Approved A brochure describing “Putter Plas­ ter,” a small plastic strip designed for application to the face of a putter by an adhesive, states that its use is “NOT IN VIOLATION OF USGA RULES.” This statement is not correct. A sample of this product was submitted to the USGA some time ago and the Association promptly advised the manufacturer that its use would violate Rule 2-2 which provides that: (1) all of the various parts of a club shall be fixed so that the club is one unit, and (2) no part of the club may be movable or separable or capable of ad­ justment during a round of play. The manufacturer was requested to re­ call the brochure containing the errone­ ous statement. It's Crowded Everywhere The Joint Links Committee at St. An­ drews, Scotland, has announced that 109,700 rounds were played on the four courses at St. Andrews during 1961, an increase by 11,000 over the previous year. A total of 37,120 rounds were played on the legendary Old Course alone. Meanwhile in Brooklyn—the New York City Department of Parks says that one of its courses, Dyker Beach, was the scene of no less than 106,457 rounds. Dyker Beach has but 18 holes. The Dyker Beach average for the year was therefore a whopping theoretical 291 rounds daily. Actually, the average must have been somewhat higher since it has been known to snow in Brooklyn, par­ ticularly during the first two months of the year when Dyker Beach is often closed. Writers Provide Scholarship Financial assistance to a student of turfgrass work at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N. J., has been made possible through the generosity of the Metropoli­ tan Golf Writers’ Association. They have contributed $500 for the purpose to the U.S.G.A. Green Section Research and Education Fund, Inc. The funds are derived from the golf writers’ annual Awards Dinner in Janu­ ary. Annually, since 1955, the writers have helped finance the studies of one who intends to continue in golf turfgrass work. NEW MEMBERS OF THE USGA REGULAR Ala. Terry Walker Golf & Country Club Valley Hi Country Club Calif. City Park Men's Golf Club Colo. Pautipaug Country Club Conn. Green Meadows Country Club Ga. Rupert Country Club Idaho Booneville Miss. Quail Hollow Country Club N. C. Illahe Hills Country Club Ore. Concord Country Club Pa. International Town & Country Club Va. ASSOCIATE Colo. Fla. Mich. Nev. N. Y. Ohio Fort Morgan Municipal Golf Course Doral Country Club Flint Recreation & Park Board Golf Dept. Stardust Golf Club Saratoga Springs Reservation Pleasant Valley Golf Course 2 USGA JOURNAL AND TURF MANAGEMENT: APRIL, 1962 Two Championship Sites Two Ohio clubs have been named as the sites for future USGA Champion­ ships. The Kenwood Country Club, Cin­ cinnati, will be host to the 1963 Women’s Open on July 18-20, and the Canterbury Golf Club, Cleveland, will be the scene of the 1964 Amateur Championship, Sep­ tember 14-19. The 1963 Women’s Open will be the second USGA Championship for Ken­ wood. George T. Dunlap, Jr., won the 1933 Amateur Championship there. Canterbury is remembered for two memorable Open Championships, in 1940 when Lawson Little was the winner there, after a playoff with Gene Sarazen, and in 1946 when Lloyd Mangrum won after a double playoff with Byron Nel­ son and Vic Ghezzi. The 1962 Women’s Open will be played at the Dunes Golf and Beach Club, Myrtle Beach, S. C., June 28-30. The Ama­ teur Championship has been scheduled at the Pinehurst Country Club, Pine­ hurst, N. C., this year and at the Wakon­ da Club, Des Moines, Iowa, in 1963. Rules Confusion While refereeing a match recently in San Francisco, Robert Roos became con­ fused by the differences in marking a ball on the putting green as recommended by the United States Golf Association and as required on the Professional Golfers’ Association tour. A note to Rule 35-1 of the Rules of Golf recommends placing a small coin or similar object behind the ball. The PGA insists that players use a small coin. A competitor in the San Francisco match marked his ball with the putter­ head while having the ball cleaned. The referee, having the PGA tournament rule in mind, called a penalty. Fortu­ nately, the loss of hole had no effect on the outcome. Assisto Glove Disapproved A sample of the Assisto golf glove has been submitted to the Association for a ruling as to whether it conforms with the Rules of Golf. The glove features a three inch wide strap which is designed to be wrapped around the last three fingers of the player’s left hand to assist him in maintaining a firm grip. The manu­ facturer was told that use of the glove violates Rule 2-2f which prohibits use of a device designed to give the player arti­ ficial aid in gripping or swinging the club, whether or not it be a part of the club. Cure For Slow Play? The Los Angeles Country Club, in an effort to solve a problem, has tightened the regulations for slow play. A paraphrase of part of golf Etiquette reads: “If a match fails to keep its place and loses more than one clear hole on the players in front, it must allow the following match to pass?’ The word “must” was substituted for “should.” The Club’s bulletin says: “There is simply no excuse for slower-than-normal golf play. It comes from a variety of lapses, all caused by lack of forethought. For example, there is delay in decision on selection of a club and numerous practice swings. Or no thought is given to a putt until the player’s turn comes. Or the walking pace, or departure from the green is too slow.” Books Reviewed A GALLERY OF WOMEN GOLFERS, by Enid Wilson (Country Life Limited, London). An illustrated 192-page book which deals with the oustanding women golfers of Britain and the United States. MASTERS OF GOLF, by P. A. Ward- Thomas (Heinemann, London). A collec­ tion of the great masters of golf chosen by right of their victories in major cham­ pionships throughout the world. Illus­ trated, 258 pages. Necrology It is with deep regret that we record the death of: Dr. Oscar F. Willing, of Portland, Ore., who was the runner-up in the 1929 Ama­ teur Championship. He was a member of the USGA Walker Cup Teams in 1923, 1924 and 1930. George S. May, of Chicago, Ill., owner of the Tam O’Shanter Country Club, Niles, Ill. Sponsor of tournaments, of which the best known was the so-called “World Championship?’ discontinued in 1958. USGA JOURNAL AND TURF MANAGEMENT: APRIL, 1962 3 “GOLF RULES IN PICTURES” A NEW USGA PUBLICATION 155 Illustrations Devoted to Basic Rules of Golf The Rules of Golf are about like the words of the second verse of the National Anthem: everybody is for them, but few know what they are.” This estimate by Herb Graffis, the Sage of Chicago, reflects a situation which is about to be strongly attacked. The weapon is a brand-new book, en­ titled “Golf Rules in Pictures.” It is a publication of the United States Golf Association, the first graphic illustration of the Rules authorized by the USGA. “Golf Rules in Pictures” will be avail­ able after April 15. It was published by Grosset & Dunlap and may be purchased for $1.95, from the USGA or through book stores. Almost all the Rules of Golf are covered in the publication, which was compiled and edited by Joseph C. Dey, Jr., USGA Executive Director, with as­ sistance from P. J. Boatwright, Jr., As­ sistant Director, C. Edmund Miller and Robert B. Bulla, Administrative As­ sistants. Illustrations are by George Kraynak. The book deals exclusively with the basic Rules rather than with ob­ scure interpretations. Wm. Ward Foshay, Chairman of the USGA Rules of Golf Committee, in the introduction notes: “The refinement of the game through the centuries has been accompanied by an evolution of the code to meet new conditions. Today in the United States there are some 6,623 golf courses, no two Obstructons are explained pictorially and by complete text of the definition in “Golf Rules in Pictures.” All items pic­ tured are obstructions under Definition 20. of which are alike. A standard 18-hole course covers at least 125 acres. Thus, the possibilities are limitless for golf balls to become involved in embarrassing situa­ tions. The Rules of Golf are necessarily framed to cover a broad variety of con­ ditions. “The object of this book is to make some of the fundamental Rules situations come to life. The bare bones of the code are clothed in pictures, based on actual cases. “As you read ‘Golf Rules in Pictures,’ note that the code of the game contains many rights for the player. It is not a code of purely restrictive command­ ments. Rather, it is an expression, in words, of the golfing customs which gen­ erations of sportsmen have found fairest ORDER FORM “GOLF RULES IN PICTURES” To: United States Golf Association 40 East 38th Street New York 16, New York Please send_____________ copies of “Golf Rules in Pictures” at $1.95 per copy. Enclosed is check or money order for $_________________ (For New York City shipments, add 60 sales tax per copy.) Name _________________________________________________________ Address ________________________________________________________ City -------------------------------------------------- Zone ____ State _____________ 4 USGA JOURNAL AND TURF MANAGEMENT: APRIL, 1962 “Do you want me to hold back this limb? How hard may the player press down the grass? for all. The Rules are just a reflection of the sporting way of playing the game. They therefore carry privileges, as well as obligations to one’s fellows and to one’s sense of honor and self-respect.” For example, the cover draws attention to two common needs for Rules. The first depicts a golfer surveying a situation which has his ball adjacent to a shed. His predicament is answered in Rule 31-2. The second has the player taking his stance with the left foot in water, the ball and the right foot on higher but muddy ground. The Rules covering casual water offer relief for the left foot. The 155 separate pictures describe ac­ tions to be taken under the given cir­ cumstances and cite the pertinent Rules. They then are amplified by complete text of the Rules in a separate section. Quick Rules Quiz (The following quiz appears in “Golf Rules in Pictures.”) 1. What is a fairway? 2. When a ball stops on the edge of the hole, is the player allowed three minutes to see whether the ball will fall into the hole? 3. When the player has to make a shot in heavy rough, may he press down just enough of the grass to allow him to see the ball when he plays? 4. Is the player allowed to lift a ball away from the following without penalty? (a) A shelter shed, (b) A fence marking out of bounds. 5. If a player breaks his putter during a round, may he borrow his partner’s? 6. If a ball jiggles when the player ad­ dresses it but comes back to its ori­ ginal lie, is there a penalty? 7. At the end of a match a player realizes that he neglected to use a handicap stroke to which he was en­ titled on the 16th hole. If he had used the stroke, he would not have lost the match. What can he do about it now that the match is over? 8. Does a player in a match lose the hole for driving off ahead of the markers? 9. In the rough, a player drops a ball out of ground under repair. It rolls into a bunker. Must he play it from the bunker? 10. In a match a player’s ball knocks his opponent’s ball into the hole. What’s the ruling? (Answers on Page 12) USGA JOURNAL AND TURF MANAGEMENT: APRIL, 1962 5 THE RULE ABOUT EXPENSES FOR AMATEURS IN GOLF By PHILIP H. STRUBING Chairman, USGA Amateur Status and Conduct Committee Why would it be wrong for an ama­ teur to accept money for expenses entailed in going to a tournament?” This is the essential question in a sug­ gestion for a change in golf’s amateur code made by the Women’s National Amateur Champion, Mrs. Jay D. Decker, of Seattle, Wash.., to the United States Golf Association. In replying, the USGA has pointed out that: 1. The rule prohibiting expenses is at the heart of amateurism in golf. If a player receives money for playing golf, he cannot be considered an amateur in any true sense. 2. A change in the expense rule would inevitably create “a class of player who would spend his time going from tourna­ ment to tournament on ‘expense’ money supplied by others.” 3. Only the better players would then be able to obtain expense money from outside sources, and this would be un­ fair to other amateurs. Mrs. Decker, the former Anne Quast, is known as a scrupulous amateur and is a member of the USGA Girls’ Junior Committee. Last year she played in only three tournaments and won two, the Na­ tional and the Western Amateur, each for the second time. Mrs. Decker’s Letter Her concern for the game prompted her to write the USGA in part as follows: “To me, an amateur is one who plays golf for fun of it or for the joy and satis­ faction of competition. Monetary remu­ neration for one’s ability is the basic thing denied. This is the ‘heart’ of the amateur code. “However, given the precise stipula­ tions of that code, it seems to me that the USGA has created a policy which they cannot and do not enforce. It un­ wittingly adds an additional requirement for being an amateur: substantial means to use to pay for the pleasure of playing in tournaments. Should the possession of money be a requirement of an amateur for competing in tournaments? “There are, as I am sure you must be aware ways of ‘getting around’ the Rules, but to me the violation of the spirit of any set of rules is as important as the violation of the letter of them . . . “This is written out of two primary concerns: (1) the many young golfers with ability who are denied major com­ petition through lack of means, or who are forced to violate the established Rules in order to do so; (2) the USGA it­ self. It is the one real criticism voiced by many of the USGA.” The USGA Position The USGA Executive Committee con­ tinues to believe that the rule prohibiting expenses (with a few limited exceptions) is sound, for the following reasons: Fundamentally, as Mrs. Decker says, an amateur is one who plays golf for the fun of it and for the pleasure and satis­ faction derived from competition. Neces­ sarily, he puts the game in proper rela­ tion to things more important in his life; he does not devote most of his time to attaining proficiency in golf. But those considerations cannot be made the basis of a workable code of amateur status. A definition of amateur­ ism to be enforceable must be more specific. Thus, the fundamental princi­ ple of the Rules of Amateur Status is stated in terms of money, and provides that an amateur golfer is one who plays the game solely as a rion-remunerative or non-profit-making sport. Fair Competition What is the purpose of attempting to have a workable, objective definition of an amateur, when, in the last analysis, the true test of amateurism is really one of the heart and spirit; i.e. subjective? 6 USGA JOURNAL AND TURF MANAGEMENT: APRIL, 1962 The purpose is to try to assure, as far as possible, fair competition for those who approach the game as amateurs, not only among themselves but against the pro­ fessionals. It is the firm conviction of the USGA Executive Committee that fair competi­ tion will not be assured if amateurs are permitted to accept expense money to engage in tournaments or exhibitions, or for personal appearances as a golfer. Reasons Are Given The reasons for this conviction are: (a) A class of player would inevitably come into existence who would spend his time going from tournament to tour­ nament on “expense” money supplied by others. Such players would make golf their primary interest—practically a vo­ cation. As such, they should compete against professionals, not against those for whom golf is a secondary interest, played solely for pleasure. (b) It is sometimes said that a number of “amateurs” now violate the existing rule on expenses. If this is true( and the USGA has no facts to establish that it is true), the same players might well con­ tinue to cheat if “expenses” were per­ mitted; in fact, they would find it easier to cheat. For example, it would be a simple matter to accept money for first- class travel but use cheaper facilities. (c) To define and to limit “expenses” effectively, fairly and uniformly would be an impossibility. Logically, “ex­ penses” could include not only money for travel, board and lodging, but expen­ ditures for golf clubs, balls, clothing, etc.; the terms might even be stretched to apply to income lost through absence from work, and this could get into imaginary areas. Even if “expenses” were limited to travel, board and lodging, it would be difficult, if not impossible. to fix the amount. (d) In the long run, only the better amateur players would be able to obtain expense money from outside sources. This would be unfair to other amateurs of less proficiency. The latter group would soon tire of competing against the former and might well create a special class of ama­ teurism all their own. The soundness of the foregoing reasons is demonstrated by what has happened in other sports where so-called amateurs are permitted to accept expense money. Not only have the evils anticipated by the USGA actually developed in those sports but the very character of the ama­ teur group in those sports has changed over the years, and one evil cannot be cured by creating another. The Natural Order What is comes down to is really this: Most if not all of us are unable to do some things we’d like to do for want of funds with which to do them. That is the natural order. To distort the natural or­ der in such an activity as golf is to dis­ tort both the activity and those who par­ ticipate in it. One final point. The Executive Com­ mittee is sometimes asked if it is really blind to “all that goes on” in the matter of financing of individuals’ golf expenses. The USGA is not and does not attempt to be a policing organization. It has neither the desire nor the means to play detec­ tive on players holding themselves out as amateurs. The same principle applies to the Rules of Golf, which must be en­ forced primarily by the player himself. The USGA does not expect any player consciously to violate the Rules of Golf; neither does it expect any player to vio­ late the Rules of Amateur Status. The game’s code of personal honesty applies both on the course and off the course. The Executive Committee periodically hears rumors that unspecified players are violating the expense rule, but the Committee can act only on concrete facts. The Committee welcomes such facts and is prepared at all times to take ap­ propriate action on them, as it has done in the past. Beyond that, the Committee cannot go. Best Interests of Golf The Executive Committee believes that amateur golfers can and should be proud of the standing of amateur golf in the eyes of the public, and of the con­ sistent, firm policy of the USGA on which that standing is based. The Ex­ ecutive Committe hopes that all amateur golfers, upon reflection, will agree that the policy so long advocated by the USGA is in the best interests of golf and of both amateur and professional golfers. USGA JOURNAL AND TURF MANAGEMENT: APRIL, 1962 7 GOLF EXECUTIVES EXCHANGE THOUGHTS IN CONFERENCES By EDDIE L. ERVIN, JR. USGA Public Information Manager There were no bells. The marriage of common interests joining the United States Golf Association with district and state associations had taken place long ago. But many of the regional organiza­ tions had not known one another, and so it was a new day in golf when they got together in three Conferences for Golf Association Executives sponsored by the USGA last month. The meetings were the first of their sort. They arose from a suggestion by James H. Potts, Secretary of the Western Pennsylvania Golf Association, who had lamented the fact that he didn’t know just what was being accomplished by other organizations like his. The response at the three sites—Wash­ ington, Chicago and San Francisco—was so gratifying that similar conferences under USGA auspices are contemplated annually in other parts of the country. The meetings attracted 160 representa­ tives of 57 golf organizations:—57 men’s and women’s district and state associa­ tions, the Royal Canadian Golf Associa­ tion, four sections of the Professional Golfers’ Association of America, national officers of the PGA, and the USGA. The purpose of the meetings was to facilitate exchange of ideas. Participa­ tion in discussion was the keynote. Sub­ ject matter included the Rules of Golf, association affairs, tournaments, club af­ fairs, handicapping and course rating, and amateur status; there were numerous sub-divisions. Each topic had a moderator, who was an officer of a regional associa­ tion or of the USGA. The participants were dedicated workers in organized golf. Many came long dis­ tances to the one-day meetings. Many started as strangers to the others, but they all soon realized their unity in the common bond of love of the game. They shared ideas and experiences freely. Many doubts were resolved and problems solved. The Conferences thus served the dual purposes of, first, bringing new George Phelps, left, president of the Florida Golf Association discusses mutu­ al problem with James H. Potts secretary of the Western Pennsylvania Golf As­ sociation at Washington session of con­ ference. Mr. Potts originated fundamental idea of the conferences. (Photos by Joseph Gambatese) thoughts to beai' in various sections and, second, strengthening the ties of or­ ganized golf. Moderators of the various sessions were: John M. Winters, Jr., USGA President Edward E. Marshall, President, G. A. of Philadelphia Stacy W. Osgood, President, Chicago District G. A. William V. Power, President, North­ ern California G. A. C. McD. England, President, West Virginia G. A. Stewart J. McIntosh, President, Min­ nesota G. A. Carl A. Jonson, Chairman Tourna­ ment Committee, Pacific North­ west G. A. Bertrand L. Kohlmann, President, Metropolitan G. A., New York Bert R. Shurly, Jr., President, G. A. of Michigan Richard C. Campbell, III, President, Colorado G. A. Wm. Ward Foshay, Chairman, USGA Rules of Golf Committee USGA JOURNAL AND TURF MANAGEMENT: APRIL, 1962 Herman M. Freydberg, Chairman, USGA Handicap Procedure Com­ mittee Harold A. Moore, Member, USGA Executive Committee Edwin R. Foley, Member, USGA Executive Committee Joseph C. Dey, Jr., USGA Executive Director, who served as Chairman of the meetings. P. J. Boatwright, Jr., USGA As­ sistant Director Each golf association conference at Washington, Chicago and San Francisco was preceded by a USGA Green Section Educational Program on “A Business Ap­ proach to Golf Course Maintenance. Rules of Golf The Rules of Golf provided lively dis­ cussion. The moderators—Mr. Foshay at Washington, Mr. Winters at Chicago and Mr. Dey at San Francisco—recounted background of the USGA trial rules of 1960-61, pointed out the values gained from the experimentation, and empha­ sized the need for uniformity in connec­ tion with the USGA’s return to full ap­ plication of the world-wide code this year. The participants were in general agreement that the need for uniformity is of paramount importance. The moderators reported that the USGA Rules of Golf Committee has al­ ready drafted a number of proposed amendments for discussion with the Bri­ tish in the quadrennial Rules conference in May, 1963. The proposals are tentative and have not yet been considered by the USGA Executive Committee. Views were invited on some of the main items under consideration, and opinion was generally favorable to them, as follows: 1. Ball unplayable, option—One-stroke penalty for dropping behind or within two club-lengths of unplayable position (as in 1961 trial rule). 2. Ball out of bounds—Authorization for clubs to adopt a local rule permitting dropping a ball within two club-lengths of the place where the ball last crossed the boundary line, under one-stroke penalty (similar to 1961 optional trial local rule). 3. Provisional ball—Limited to balls lost or out of bounds (as in 1961). 4. Flagstick—Not to be used as back­ stop when ball is played from putting Describing various heights of grass out­ ward from the putting surface took Joseph C. Dey, Jr., USGA Executive Director, to the blackboard during con­ ferences of Golf Association Executives. Many were interested in the USGA’s standard for varying heights of grass. green; penalty for striking, whether at­ tended or unattended—loss of hole in match play and two strokes in stroke play. 5. Repair of ball marks on putting green—Prohibition against stepping on ball mark would be eliminated. 6. Stroke play, ball which might assist fellow-competitor—Owner would be al­ lowed to lift or to play first. 7. Stroke play—Penalty for a competi­ tor’s ball striking a fellow-competitor’s ball only when both balls lie on the putting green. The moderators stressed that the pro­ posals were tentative and would doubt­ less undergo revision; also, that other suggested amendments are under con­ sideration. Club Affairs In Washington, those in attendance had an opportunity to refer tax questions to Walter Slowinski, a member of the law firm of Baker, McKenzie, and High­ tower. Mr. Slowinski is an expert on taxes as they apply to country clubs and assists the USGA in this field, as well as serving as General Counsel to the Club Managers’ Association of America and the Golf Course Superintendents’ Association of America. Mr. Slowinski advised the group on provisions in a new tax bill now before USGA JOURNAL AND TURF MANAGEMENT: APRIL, 1962 9 the House of Representatives. He said that if a club were used primarily for the furtherance of the taxpayer’s trade or business (that is, if his membership were more than 50% due to business reasons) deductions of club dues and en­ tertainment expense on income tax re­ turns were proposed to be allowed to the extent that those expenses were incurred for the furtherance of the taxpayer’s trade or business. He said it must first be established that one belongs to a club primarily for business and, having done that, one need only then to prove how much he actually spent at the club for business purposes. Mr. Slowinski also advised the group on an Internal Revenue Service ruling that exempts from the 20% club dues tax all dues and assessments which are specifically earmarked for a specific capital improvement. He advised clubs which contemplate setting aside funds for capital improvements to ask the In­ ternal Revenue Service for a ruling in advance, because in some cases where this was not done the clubs were told that they had not complied fully with the requirements and the exemptions were disallowed. On the matter of clubs permitting an excessive number of public parties to use their facilities, Mr. Slowinski reported that one club which permitted outside parties to use its dining facilities made a profit of $200,000 over three years on this particular operation. Because of the unduly large number of public parties, the Internal Revenue Service ruled that the club was not tax-exempt, and there­ fore it had to pay corporate income tax on the $200,000. The corporate income tax amounted to $100,000. In speaking about efforts to reduce the tax on club dues from 20% to 10%, Mr. Slowinski expressed the opinion that it would be unfair if this were not done. He said the tax on money spent at night clubs had already been reduced to 10%, leaving admissions to horse racing and dog racing as the only money being taxed at 20% besides club dues. The Golf Association of Michigan, a leader in keeping abreast of problems affecting its member clubs, is investi­ gating a proposal for group fire insurance for its clubs. California representatives told how Walter Slowinski, matter of taxes as try clubs, covered posed new tax bill ton conference. Mr. USGA in an expert on the they apply to coun- highlights of a pro- during the Washing- Slowinski assists the this field. they organized to obtain favorable action on a State referendum limiting assess­ ment of club real estate. This was one of the most remarkable efforts ever made in organized golf. The discussions touched upon unioniza­ tion of club employees and a proposal that every club appoint to its Board a tax advisor and perhaps an accountant. Association Affairs There was considerable swapping of ideas on tournament procedures, rules of eligibility for association membership, and means of raising revenue. The New Jersey Association, for ex­ ample, has one paid part-time employee whose sole responsibility is to conduct tournaments. All other work is voluntary. Through the efforts of many, the As­ sociation is able to maintain 21 boys on scholarships at Rutgers University. Many other associations have caddie scholar­ ship programs. Some associations leave the responsi­ bility of issuing handicaps to clubs; others bill clubs for handicap cards. Handicap card prices range from $1 to $10 per year; however, the maximum io USGA JOURNAL AND TURF MANAGEMENT: APRIL, 1962 figure also covers payment of entry fees in association-sponsored events. There was considerable discussion of services to member clubs, including a recent “Golf Club Operations” survey of club financial matters in the New York area by the Metropolitan Golf Associa­ tion. The Northern California Associa­ tion is considering employment of a staff expert on club operations and manage­ ment. The Southern California Association proposes to construct a headquarters building for golf associations in its dis­ trict . . . Junior and Senior programs were thoroughly considered . . . The value of a frequent periodical published by an association for its member clubs was stressed ... It was proposed that associations try to develop a way to help clubs indoctrinate new members into the etiquette of golf. Handicapping and Course Rating Electronic computation of handicaps was discussed at all three meetings. At Washington, Herman Freydberg, Chairman of the USGA Handicap Pro­ cedure Committee, told of the efforts of many people in developing the USGA Golf Handicap System, under which a handicap is computed from the best 10 scores of the player’s last 25 rounds, compared with course rating. There were questions as to why the USGA System does not embody “stroke controls”, an artificial method of reduc­ ing a high score for a hole to a specified number of strokes over par for handi­ cap purposes. Mr. Freydberg pointed out that there are built-in controls in the USGA System, and that use of the lowest 40% of a player’s scores (to the 10-out- of-25 system) almost automatically eli­ minates freak scores. He also pointed out that artificial “stroke controls” tend to complicate handicapping in a way con­ trary to the USGA policy of having a na­ tional system as simple as possible. On the other hand, the case for “stroke controls” was presented at San Francisco by Thomas G. McMahon, an originator of the idea. Amateur Status Solid support of the Rules of Amateur Status was apparent in the discussions at all three conferences. Questions were raised as to the rule denying amateur Burt R. Shurly, Jr., president of the Golf Association of Michigan, moderated the club affairs portion of the conference in Chicago. status to physical education teachers who give golf instruction for compensation. There was, however, little or no sym­ pathy for any change in the fundamental concept of amateurism in golf. Green Section Educational Programs The USGA Green Section conducts an annual Educational Program in January immediately before the USGA Annual Meeting. This year’s sessions on “A Busi­ ness Approach to Golf Course Mainte­ nance” will be reported in the USGA Journal and Turf Management, start­ ing with this issue (see page 24). To bring the benefits of direct discus­ sion to USGA Member Clubs in various parts of the country, the Green Section Staff repeated the New York subject matter in Washington, Chicago and San Francisco on days immediately preceding the Conferences of Golf Association Executives. Every USGA Member Club was invited to send two representatives to each meeting. The USGA is very grateful to the fol­ lowing who made these programs possi­ ble: Martin F. McCarthy, Chevy Chase, Md. David O. Miller, Bethlehem, Pa. James E. Thomas, Arlington, Va. Robert Shields, Rockville, Md. Sherwood A. Moore, Mamaroneck, N. Y. Eberhard R. Steiniger, Clementon, N. J. Carl Jehlen, Springfield, N. J. Alonzo Martin, Washington USGA JOURNAL AND TURF MANAGEMENT: APRIL, 1962 11 Charles N. Eckstein, Chicago Robert M. Williams, Highland Park, Ill. Paul Dye, Jr., Indianapolis John A. Frederiksen, Moline, Ill. Roy W. Nelson, Homewood, Ill. Dr. Fred M. Adams, Birmingham, Mich. Ward C. Case, Columbus, Ohio Paul W. Neff, Columbus, Ohio Marion Mendenhall, Cincinnati Allen M. Oakley, Quincy, Ill. Robert E. Hanna, San Francisco Ellis W. Van Gorder, Stanford, Calif. Stanley Pitcher, San Mateo, Calif. T. E. Van Gorder, San Rafael, Calif. James H. Wilson, Burlingame, Calif. Father Tod W. Ewald, Corte Madera, Calif. Lynn A. Smith, Pasadena, Calif. Agronomists of the USGA Green Section Staff: Dr. Marvin H. Ferguson, College Station, Texas Alexander M. Radko, Highland Park, N. J. William H. Bengeyfield, Garden Grove, Calif. James L. Holmes, Chicago James B. Moncrief, Athens, Ga. Charles E. Croley, Highland Park, N. J. ANSWERS TO QUICK RULES QUIZ (Continued from page 5 ) 1. There is no such thing in the Rules of Golf. What is commonly called fairway is part of “through the green.” Definition 34. 2. No. He is not allowed more than a momentary delay (a matter of seconds) to settle a doubt as to whether his ball is at rest. Rule 35-lh. 3. No. He is not of necessity entitled to see the ball when playing a stroke. Rule 17-2. 4. (a) Yes. A shelter shed is an ob­ struction. Definition 20 and Rule 31- 2. (b) No. Definition 20 and Rule 17-3. 5. No. A club may not be replaced by borrowing from any other person playing on the course. Rule 3. 6. No. A ball has “moved” only if it leaves its position and comes to rest in any other place. Definition 3. 7. Nothing. A claim must be made be­ fore any player in the match plays from the next teeing ground, or, in the case of the last hole of the round, before all players in the match leave the putting green. Rule 11-1. 8. No. His opponent may, if he chooses, require that he replay the stroke, without penalty. Rule 13-1. (In stroke play the rule is different—see Rule 13-2.) 9. No. He may re-drop it without penal­ ty. Rule 22-2c. 10. The opponent is deemed to have holed out at his last stroke. Rule 35-2c. HANDICAP DECISION PAR-3 COURSES: SCORES MAY NOT BE USED IN COMPUTING USGA HANDICAPS; PAR-3 COURSES, HOW TO RATE: USGA SYSTEM MAY BE USED USGA Handicap Decision 62-2 References: Men—Section 4-6b Women—Section 15-6b Q: May USGA Handicaps be computed from scores made on par-3 courses if the par-3 courses have been rated in ac­ cordance with the USGA Course Rating System? A: No. Scores are not acceptable for USGA Handicaps when made on par-3 courses or other courses where the majority of holes are not par 4s and 5s. Such courses do not normally place a premium on distance or variety of strokes, factors which are important in play on standard courses; hence, it would not be equitable to handicap players on such short courses on the same basis as players on standard courses. A par-3 course does not normally require the use of a full set of clubs. A score on such a course is analogous to a score made in a competition in which the type of clubs is limited; such scores are prohibited in USGA Handicap computations by Section 4-6b of USGA Golf Handicap System for Men. However, scores made on par-3 and similar courses may be used with the USGA Handicap and Course Rating Sys­ tems to produce equitable handicaps for use at such courses only. Handicaps so produced may not be termed “USGA Handicaps.” USGA Handicaps produced by scores at other courses may be used fairly at short courses if no other types of handicap are permitted. 12 USGA JOURNAL AND TURF MANAGEMENT: APRIL, 1962 79 COURSES REQUIRED TO DETERMINE OPEN FIELD Oakmont is host to Open for the 4th time The use of 79 golf courses will be re­ quired in determining the final field for the 62nd National Open Champion­ ship at the Oakmont Country Club, Oak­ mont, Pa., June 14-16. The 150 players at Oakmont will be decided by qualifying competitions and by two exempt lists, one excusing cer­ tain players from all qualifying and the second exempting players from Local Qualifying only. Two Part Qualifying Qualifying again will be divided into two parts—61 Local Qualifying Rounds and 13 Sectional Qualifying Champion­ ships. All trials will be over 36 holes stroke play. Entries for the title held by Gene Littler must arrive by 5 P.M. on May 2 at the USGA office, 40 East 38th St., New York 16, N. Y. Last year there was an entry of 2,449 players, four less than the record entry of 2,453 set in 1960. After Local Qualifying, the eligible field for the 13 Sectional Qualifying Championships will approximate 20 per cent of total entries, excluding those exempted from both qualifying series. the head professional of the Okamont Country Club (Lew Worsham). pionship played at Oakmont. Tommy Armour won there in 1927; Sam Parks, Jr., won in 1935; and Ben Hogan won his fourth Open at Oakmont in 1953. Seven categories of players will be exempted from all qualifying. They are: The last five individuals to win the Open—Gene Littler, Arnold Palmer, Bill Casper, Jr., Tommy Bolt and Dick Mayer; 1961 USGA Amateur Champion (Jack Nicklaus is now ineligible for this class of exemption as he is no longer an ama­ teur); 1961 PGA Champion—Jerry Bar­ ber; 1961 British Open Champion—Ar­ nold Palmer; 1961 British Amateur Champion—Michael F. Bonallack; the 10 lowest scorers and and tying for 10th place in the 1961 Open—Gene Littler, Bob Goalby, Doug Sanders, Jack Nick­ laus, Mike Souchak, Dow Finsterwald, Doug Ford, Eric Monti, Jacky Cupit, Gardner Dickinson, Jr., and Gary Player; the 10 leading money-winners in the PGA official list for one year ending with the PGA tournament immediately before the closing date for Open entries (May 2). Purse of $70,000 10 Categories Exempt The 72-hole Championship will carry a $70,000 purse for professionals. The winner’s share will be $15,000.. Every professional who returns a 72-hole score will receive at least $300, and every ama­ teur who returns a 72-hole score will re­ ceive a gold medal. Prize money in each of the 13 Sec­ tional Qualifying Championships will be $600. the lowest scoring professional will receive $300, the second-place pro­ fessional $200 and the third-place pro­ fessional $100. A total of $7,800 will be awarded at the 13 Sectional Qualifying Championships. Thus, the total prize money for all phases of the Open Cham­ pionship will be $77,800. This will be the fourth Open Cham- Ten categories of players will be ex­ empted from Local Qualifying. They are: All former Open Champions; all for­ mer USGA Amateur Champions; all for­ mer PGA Champions; all former British Open Champions; members of the 1961 USGA Walker Cup and Americas Cup teams; members of the 1961 U. S. Ryder Cup team; the 20 lowest scorers and any tying for 20th place in the 1961 Open; the 20 lowest scorers and any tying for 20th place in the 1961 PGA Champion­ ship; the 20 leading money-winners and any tying for 20th place in the PGA offi­ cial list for one year ending with the PGA tournament immediately before the closing date for Open entries (May 2); USGA JOURNAL AND TURF MANAGEMENT: APRIL, 1962 13 OPEN QUALIFYING SCHEDULE KY. ________ MD. ________ MASS. ______ LOCAL QUALIFYING Friday, May 18 ___ LOUISVILLE ___ BALTIMORE ..... WORCESTER CALIF. ___________ OAKLAND MICH. ______ ______ DETROIT GRAND RAPIDS MINN. ______ _____ ST. PAUL ______ JACKSON MISS. _______ ... KANSAS CITY MO. ________ ST. LOUIS NEB. _______ ______ LINCOLN ALBUQUERQUE N. M. ______ N. Y. _______ _______ ALBANY ROCHESTER .... BURLINGTON ________ FARGO CINCINNATI COLUMBUS TOLEDO OKLA. ____ OKLAHOMA CITY ____ PORTLAND ORE. _______ PA. ________ ... HARRISBURG PHILADELPHIA PITTSBURGH _______ CAMDEN _____ MEMPHIS NASHVILLE Monday, May 21 ALA. ____ ____ BIRMINGHAM AR1Z. ______________ PHOENIX ARK. _________ HOT SPRINGS CALIF. _______ LOS ANGELES SAN DIEGO COLO. ______________ DENVER CONN. ________ HAMDEN D. C. ________ WASHINGTON FLA. ________ JACKSONVILLE MIAMI TAMPA GA. ... ___________ ATLANTA HAWAII ________ HONOLULU IDAHO ________________ BOISE ILL. _______________ CHICAGO SPRINGFIELD IND. _________ INDIANAPOLIS SOUTH BEND IOWA _________ DES MOINES KANSAS __________ WICHITA N. C. ________ N. D. _______ OHIO _______ s. c. TENN. _____ TEXAS _____________ DALLAS HOUSTON UTAH ________ FARMINGTON VA. _____________ RICHMOND WASH. ___________ SEATTLE SPOKANE W. VA. . _____ HUNTINGTON WIS. ___________ MILWAUKEE SECTIONAL QUALIFYING Monday, June 4 COLO. _____________ DENVER ____ KANSAS CITY MO. OHIO __________ CINCINNATI TENN. ____________ MEMPHIS TEXAS ______________ DALLAS WASH. _____________ TACOMA Tuesday, June 5 CALIF. ___ SAN FRANCISCO __ WASHINGTON D C GA. _______________ ATLANTA CHICAGO ILL MICH. _____________ DETROIT MONTCLAIR N J .... PITTSBURGH PA USGA PUBLICATIONS OF GENERAL INTEREST RULES THE RULES OF GOLF, as approved by the United States Golf Association and the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews, Scot- rates for quan- land. Booklet 25 cents (special tity orders, more than 500). GOLF RULES IN PICTURES, published by Grosset and Dunlap, compiled by Joseph C. Dey, Jr., USGA Executive Director. 96 pages, 8y2 x 10% inches, $1.95. DUTIES OF OFFICIALS UNDER THE RULES OF GOLF, a reprint of a USGA Journal article that contains a check list of the duties of the referee and other committee members on the course. No charge. HANDICAPPING USGA GOLF HANDICAP SYSTEM FOR MEN, containing recommendations for com­ puting USGA Handicap and for rating courses. Booklet 25 cents. USGA Slide Rule Handicap- per 25 cents. Poster 15 cents. THE CONDUCT OF WOMEN’S GOLF, contain- ing suggestions for guidance in the conduct of women’s golf in clubs and associations, includ- ing tournament procedure, handicapping and course rating. 35 cents. COURSE RATING POSTER for certifying hole by hole ratings to a club; for association use, size 8!/2 x 11 inches, 5 cents, $3.50 per 100. COURSE RATING REPORT, a form for rating a course hole by hole; for association use, size 4G x 7 inches. 10 cents, $7.50 per 100. USGA HANDICAP RECORD FORM, revised in 1961, provides for the listing of 75 scores. It is designed for ease in determining the last 25 differentials from which to select the lowest 10 when more than 25 scores are posted. $3 for 100. HANDICAPPING THE UNHANDICAPPED, a reprint of a USGA Journal article explaining the Callaway System of automatic handicap- ping for occasional players in a single tourna- ment. No charge. REBUILDING AND REMODEL- TO CONSIDER, article in GREEN SECTION A GUIDE FOR GREEN COMMITTEE MEM- BERS OF GOLF CLUBS, 16-page booklet. 25 cents. GOLF COURSE ING—FACTORS USGA Journal by A. M. Radko. No charge. THE GOLF COURSE WORKER—TRAINING AND DIRECTION. No charge. HOW TO MEET RISING COSTS OF GOLF COURSE MAINTENANCE, PARTS I & II, panel discussions. No charge. MISTER CHAIRMAN, reprint of USGA Journal article. No charge. WATER USE ON THE GOLF COURSE, panel discussions. No charge. COMPETITIONS PREPARING THE COURSE FOR A COMPETI­ TION, reprint of USGA article by John P. English. No charge. TOURNAMENTS FOR YOUR CLUB, a reprint of a USGA article detailing various types of competitions. No charge. UENEKAL ARE YOU A SLOW PLAYER? ARE YOU SURE? A reprint of a USGA Journal article by John D. Ames. No charge. A JUNIOR GOLF PROGRAM FOR YOUR CLUB AND DISTRICT, a 16-page booklet on or­ ganizing and developing junior golf programs at different levels by the USGA Junior Cham­ pionship Committee. No charge. COSTLY FIRES IN GOLF CLUB PROPERTIES, lists potential fire hazards and damage to golf club properties. No charge. PROTECTION OF PERSONS AGAINST LIGHT­ NING ON GOLF COURSES, a poster. No charge. USGA JOURNAL AND TURF MANAGEMENT, a 33-page magazine published seven times a year. $2 a year. These publications are available on request to the United States Golf Association, 40 East 38th Street, New York 16, N. Y. Please send payment with your order. 14 USGA JOURNAL AND TURF MANAGEMENT: APRIL, 1962 NATIONAL GOLF DAY SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 2 Entrants to play Champions against par National Golf Day, golf’s only benefit for golf, will be celebrated on June 2 when Gene Littler, the 1961 Open Champion, engages Jerry Barber, last year’s PGA Champion, in the Round of the Champion at the Aronimink Golf Club, Newton Square, Pa. Beginning that day, and continuing through June 10, golfers throughout the country will have an opportunity to match their net scores against the win­ ner of the Littler-Barber match. All men amateurs will play their nor­ mal handicaps. Those who do not have USGA Handicaps can utilize the Calla­ way System. Women will be permitted to use their regular handicaps plus an additional 10 strokes. National Golf Day medals will be awarded to those who beat the winner of the Littler-Barber match by the Pro­ fessional Golfers’ Association of Ameri­ ca. Par Threes Included All who participate will compete against the winner’s score in relation to par rather than on a stroke-for-stroke basis. This makes it possible for players at all courses, including par-3 courses, to compete equitably. Participants can play as many National Golf Day rounds as they wish during the week. The entry fee for each round is $1.00. The event is sponsored by the PGA, which turns over the net receipts to Na­ tional Golf Fund, Inc., for distribution to a number of golf projects and charities. Lou Strong, PGA President, says “No other event is more important to all golfers, amateur and professional alike, and to the game of golf. National Golf Day provides an opportunity to all of us to put something back into the game which we all love. “There are many deserving charities Gene Littler, USGA Open Champion in 1962, engages 1962 PGA Champion Jerry Barber in National Golf Day match June 2. which use golf to raise money for their particular worthwhile causes. We are proud to have golf play a part in them. However, we are doubly proud of Na­ tional Golf Day which helps worthwhile golf charities and golf projects.” Since the inception of the program in 1952, more than $850,000 has been dis­ tributed. Green Section Benefits Among the projects rewarded by the program is the U.S.G.A. Green Section Research and Educational Fund, Inc. which received $80,500 from National Golf Fund from 1952 through 1961. The Edgewater Golf Club of Chicago led the nation in 1961 contributions with a total of $1,260. The Rackham Golf Club, Royal Oak, Mich., site of the 1961 USGA Amateur Public Links Championship, was second with $1,257. USGA JOURNAL AND TURF MANAGEMENT: APRIL, 1962 15 HOW GOLF BEGAN-MAYBE By GEOFFREY COUSINS Since our historians argue without con­ victing anyone, I propose to let imagination have its fling and suggest that golf had a beginning long before modern civilization, certainly before the Romans introduced to the Ancient Bri­ tons the game of paganica, with its leather ball stuffed with feathers. So I set the genesis of this great game in prehistoric Britain on the rolling Sus­ sex Downs, circa 200 B.C. There, in one of several caves set in the hillside, lived an Ancient Briton with sporting proclivities and a wife who did not understand him. One day, walking back from a hunting expedition and fol­ lowed by his wife, who bore not only the product of the chase in the shape of a bear, but also the product of their martial felicity in the shape of a buxom baby, young Cunobelin spotted a round pebble lying on the short-cropped turf. Cunobelin Holes Out He gave the pebble a joyous clip with his knobbly flint-studded club and grin­ ned as he watched it skim over the turf. On coming up to it, he delivered another shrewd blow with similar result. By this time they were near the cave and a third stroke was made, whereupon the pebble, bounding along the grass and then hitting another pebble, jumped into the air and fell into a cauldron which had been left simmering on the oakwood fire. Cunobelin stared for a moment, then collapsed on the ground, convulsed with mirth. His wife, seeing nothing to laugh at, dumped the dead bear, removed her baby from the sling round her neck, and, plunging two sticks into the cauldron, fished out the pebble. “That’s a nice thing to have in the stew,” she exclaimed, eyeing it with dis­ gust. But Cunobelin snatched the peb­ ble, put it in his bearskin belt, and sent her reeling with a cuff. “Keep dinner hot,” he ordered, and, going back across the Downs, dropped the pebble and once more tried to hit it into the cauldron. Dusk was falling before, weary and disconsolate, he gave up. By that time the stew was burned, and Cunobelin, very naturally, beat his wife, thus emphasizing his masculine superiority and also rid­ ding his golf ego of the cauldron inhibi­ tion. “It is all your fault, woman,” he cried between blows. “You took that pebble from the cauldron and bewitched it.” Cunobelin’s wife cried herself to sleep and her lord and master drank himself into a stupor with two gallons of mead. First Golf Widow In this way he became the first golfer and his wife the first golf widow. Present-day golfers will sympathize with Cunobelin as much as their wives will condole with Mrs. C. She very naturally hid her resentment at that pebble which had come between her and what passed in those days for married happiness, and derived what pleasure she could from her children and her house­ hold chores. He, very naturally, began to talk about his exploit and the next Saturday camp­ fire dilated extensively on how he had holed out in the cauldron in three strokes, conveniently forgetting his subsequent failures to repeat the feat. One of his listeners was Caractacus, equally young, equally sporting, and married to an even less understanding wife. The sequel is obvious. Caractacus was up at dawn with his club and a pebble, and inside a week had made enough progress in the art to issue a challenge. The First Match The match was played from the top of Ditchling Bacon to a cauldron sunk in the ground between their two caves. Cunobelin hit the first stroke down the middle and Caractacus followed with one 16 USGA JOURNAL AND TURF MANAGEMENT: APRIL, 1962 equally good. Cunobelin’s next shot, how­ ever, was unlucky, for the pebble rolled into a gully, whereas Caractacus was still on the “pretty” in two. Cunobelin surveyed the gully and scratched his head. Caractacus had a look and stroked his beard. “I don’t see how I can get out of there,” said Cunobelin. “It would be rather difficult,” mur­ mured Caractacus. “Perhaps I could pick out the pebble and place it on the grass?” hazarded Cunobelin. “Perhaps you couldn’t,” retorted Car­ actacus. “I’ll give you one for so doing,” offered Cunobelin, but Caractacus had walked out of earshot. So Cunobelin hacked away four times before getting clear of the gully, and Caractacus, despite duffing his third, holed out in three fewer strokes. But Cunobelin refused to accept the result and appealed to the council of the camp­ fire. The elders heard the evidence with becoming gravity and, after consulting among themselves for a time, left the chief to announce the decision. Rule l’s Genesis “We are not well acquainted with these youthful sports and pastimes,” he de­ clared, “but, having considered the mat­ ter carefully with due regard to what we feel is the strict justice of the case, we rule that the pebble in question must be played as it lies. Caractacus therefore is the winner.” In this way the first rule of golf was formulated by the first decision ever made. Today there are forty-one rules and hundreds of decision are issued an­ nually, but golfers still argue. Cunobelin, in my fable, wanted to “lift and lose one”; the elders said he must play the pebble as it lay; and in those days the word of the elders was law. Today there are far too many Cunobe- lins and far too few elders combining austerity with authority. But anyone who says so is but a voice crying in the wilderness. Reprinted from Chapter I of GOLFERS AT LAW by Geoffrey Cousins, copyright 1958 by Geoffrey Cousins, 1959 by Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., with the permission of Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. USGA FILM LIBRARY "The Rules of Golf—Etiquette." A family four-ball match stresses the importance of right relations to other players and to the course. Ben Hogan appears in several scenes. Robert T. Jones, Jr., makes the introductory statement. A "must" for every golfer. 17% minutes. "Play Them As They Lie." The Rules of Golf for fairway and rough. Johnny Farrell, the 1928 U. S. Open Champion, acts as in­ termediary between Wilbur Mulligan, a be­ ginner of unimpeachable integrity, and Joshua P. Slye, a past master in the art of breaking the Rules. Filmed at Baltusrol Golf Club, Springfield, N. J. I6V2 minutes. "On the Green." The Rules governing situations on the putting green. Photo­ graphed at the Mid-Ocean Club, Bermuda. 17 minutes. "Great Moments in Golf." Eight Cham­ pions are seen with the many interesting exhibits in "Golf House," home of the USGA Golf Museum and Library, and in flash­ backs of their playing days. Robert T. Jones, Jr., during his "Grand Siam" . . . Ben Hogan . . . Francis Ouimet . . . Gene Sara- zen . . . Charles Evans, Jr. . . . Findlay S. Douglas . . . Mrs. Glenna Collett Vare . . . Miss Margaret Curtis. Black and white. 28 minutes. "Walker Cup Highlights." Historic events in golf's oldest team competition between Great Britain and the United States. Robert T. Jones, Jr., Francis Ouimet and other great players are shown. First half, black and white; second half, beautiful color se­ quences of the 1959 Match at Muirfield, Scotland. 16 minutes. "First World Amateur Team Championship for Eisenhower Trophy." Twenty-nine coun­ tries compete in golf's newest major event at St. Andrews, Scotland. Climaxed by play­ off in which Australia defeats the United States to become the first winner of the Eisenhower Trophy. 14 minutes. "Second World Amateur Team Champion­ ship for Eisenhower Trophy." International friendships are furthered as 32 countries play at the Merion Golf Club near Philadel­ phia. The United States is the winner, paced by remarkable play by Jack Nicklaus. Presi­ dent Eisenhower is shown receiving the American and the Australian teams at the White House. 17 minutes. "Golf's Longest Hour." Cary Mddlecoff sets a target at which Ben Hogan, Julius Boros and Ted Kroll aim in vain, as Dr. Middlecoff wins the 1956 U. S. Open Cham­ pionship at Oak Hill Country Club, Roches­ ter, N. Y. 17% minutes. "Famous Golf Courses: Scotland." Pic­ turesque and famous holes on the great courses at Troon, Prestwick, Carnoustie, St. Andrews, North Berwick and Muirfield. The distinctive aspects of Scottish linksland are seen at their finest. 18 minutes. Prints are distributed by the USGA, 40 East 38th St., New York 16, N. Y. The rental is $20 per film; $35 for two; $50 for three; $60 for four and $70 for five, in combination at the same time, including the cost of shipping prints to the renter. USGA JOURNAL AND TURF MANAGEMENT: APRIL, 1962 17 GOLF AS SHE IS SPOKE By WALTER H. CARTWRIGHT 6. DISCONTINUANCE OF PLAY a. When Permitted—Players shall not discontinue play on account of bad weather or for any other reason, unless:— They consider that there be danger from lightning or There be some other reason, such as sudden illness, which the Com­ mittee considers satisfactory. (Rules of Golf) {recall a match in which my opponent Arthur Pondersbury, was suddenly attacked by a fit of hiccups^ due possibly to having consumed too many pints of beer, mainly at my expense. It was a rather important match for the Captain’s prize and just as he was addressing his ball on the 4th tee his entire frame shook as the first lusty hiccup convulsed him. He recovered and settled down, only to be smitten again just at the top of his swing. This thoroughly unnerved him, and as he made his third attempt, caused him to hurry his stroke and slice his ball into the rough. Hiccuping audibly every ten seconds or so he made his way to it and, rather luckily, caught it between hiccups and landed it on the green two feet from the pin. It was most regrettable that just as he took his putt a veritable father and mother of a hiccup shook him from stem to stern and caused him, not only to miss the hole but put his ball four feet past it. Hiccup of Hiccups It was at this juncture that he thought of abandoning play on the grounds of sudden illness and in a somewhat wordy, hiccup-punctuated speech, announced his intentions. “Far be it from me,” I said, “to deter you from any line of action you may de­ cide upon, but I very much doubt if the Committee will consider your hiccups satisfactory, and you realize that this may be the last opportunity we shall have of playing our match if they do not. The thing to do, if you feel unable to con­ tinue playing will be to concede the match to me and retire from the com­ petition.” Pondersbury thought this over with periodical interruptions from his hic­ cups. “If I had a glass of water,” he said, “I could drink it from the back of the glass and that would—HUP—stop it.” A Watery Precipitation Fortunately we were fairly near the Club house so—carefully marking the positions of the balls—we approached the steward and obtained a glass of water. I watched with interest as Pondersbury essayed to manoeuvre the glass into a position in which he could drink from the back of it. The first attempt proved disastrous as the contents of the glass were precipitated over his shirt front. He was just on the point of succeeding with his second glass when the club cat in­ sinuated itself between his feet causing him to precipitate the water into his right ear. He is, I will grant, a tryer and, with glass recharged, he made a third at­ tempt whilst the steward and I watched him with bated breath. Due to the fact that Pondersbury’s breath was completely unbateable he received a further soak­ ing whilst a fourth and fifth attempt proved equally disastrous. He was mak­ ing his sixth attempt when another mem­ ber of the club, who has suffered Pon­ dersbury in silence on many occasions, entered the room, had one look at him and said quietly, “Really, old man, don’t you think the cloak room would be more fitting place for your ablutions.” This caused Pondersbury to swallow the water down the wrong way, nearly choking him. When we had finished slapping him on the back to restore his breath he was a sorry sight. “You can have the match,” he splut­ tered as he went to change into a dry suit. Reprinted with the permission of GOLFING magazine, London. 18 USGA JOURNAL AND TURF MANAGEMENT: APRIL, 1962 COURSE MODERNIZATION By GEOFFREY S. CORNISH Golf Course Architect Keeping pace with the extensive con­ struction of new courses, an un­ precedented number of established lay­ outs are being altered. It is therefore worthwhile to review the objectives of these renovation programs, and at the same time list important factors to be considered in the program. FOUR MAJOR OBJECTIVES These are as follows: 1. To upgrade the playing standards of the course to a level commensurate with improvements in course condition­ ing, the individual player’s game and in playing equipment. These improvements over the last decades are discussed by Mr. Robert Tyre Jones 1 in “Golf Is My Game.” 2. To assist the course superintendent in raising maintenance standards by eliminating or modifying features that are exorbitant to maintain. This may al­ so include streamlining the course for machine maintenance. 3. To increase the beauty of the lay­ out and the pleasure derived from play­ ing it. 4. To assure safety, in so far as possi­ ble, for both players and abutters. Be­ cause of greatly increased play many hitherto safe areas have become danger spots. One club with an area where several tees and greens are crowded to­ gether has named this the “shooting gallery.” Another club describes a fair­ way where balls from two adjoining holes frequently land as “suicide strip.” Hazards can also abound for abutters. A course designed decades ago may have then been bordered by fields and woods. Today these vacant areas have often been converted to building lots and roadways, making out-of-bounds shots hazardous to neighbors and passersby. FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED Any change must be made with the overriding policy of making the layout interesting for the low handicap player and yet not too severe for the high. To achieve the four objectives described above major surgery in the form of an entirely new layout may be required; or more frequently reconstruction of cer­ tain features may achieve the purpose. But whatever the extent of the renova­ tion program at least ten factors as fol­ lows require consideration. 1. Increasing overall strength and length and in particular getting more par 4s over 400 yards in length. So much of the inherent strength of a course lies in these long par 4s. Strength of finishing holes too must be considered, and the overall balance between holes with dif­ ferent playing values. 2. Increasing size and length of tees to facilitate maintenance and to provide greater flexibility in placement of tee markers. 3. Re-arranging fairway bunkers. Bunkers ideally situated a few decades ago are no trouble today to the low handi­ cap player but are making playing con­ ditions miserable for the type of player who has enough troubles without them. In general, but subject to several obvious factors, we find bunkers placed 240 yards from the middle of the tee on the hook side and 220-230 on the slice side with 40 yards of unobstructed fairway be­ tween, function in the desired manner. That is, they catch the erratic long but do not trouble the short hitter. Modern fairway bunkers are raised above fair­ way level rather than cut below ground. Thus they are more visible and easier to maintain than the old fashioned pits. 4. Construction of new and much larger greens. Modern greens are raised above fairway level and are sculptured and fairly tightly trapped. Moreover they offer a more interesting approach shot, a greater aesthetic appeal and should not be troublesome to maintain. Rebuilding a green implies building it in accordance with the high standards set by the Green Section Staff of the USGA2 and the in­ USGA JOURNAL AND TURF MANAGEMENT: APRIL, 1962 19 troduction of new and improved strains of grass. The whys and wherefores of re­ building greens have been covered fully by A. M. Radko.3 5. Planting of additional trees and re­ moval of others. Four types of planting frequently required are backdrops for greens, shade trees at tees, dividers be­ tween fairways and boundary plantings. On the other hand it is very easy to over­ plant a course, making the superin­ tendents’ tasks more difficult. No tree, in my opinion, should be planted closer than 60 feet to a putting surface. Turf­ grass problems are undoubtedly com­ pounded by too many trees. Certainly some of these problems can be reduced by thinning out existing trees and severely pruning others. 6. Addition of water hazards. In moderation these increase the playing interest of any course. They also add to the beauty of the landscape and may facilitate drainage and act as reservoirs. 7. Reduction of stiff climbs together with removal of steep mounds and banks. Today, with heavy earth moving equip­ ment, mountains can be levelled and de­ pressions filled at far less cost than be­ fore the introduction of these mechanical marvels. Heavy equipment has revolu­ tionized golf course construction. 8. Creation of more adequate practice areas including practice fairways, chip­ ping greens and larger practice greens. 9. Modification for electric cars. This includes charting routes and providing macadamized pathways on all steep slopes and probably in other areas. 10. Installation of fairway irrigation, keeping in mind that this may change the character of the course. PLANNING THE RENOVATION Some clubs take years to complete the renovation program, while others com­ plete it within a season or two. In either case long range planning is necessary to avoid the phenomenon all too frequently observed of a chairman eliminating a feature one season and his successor putting it back the next. This phenome­ non has been aptly described in W. H. Bengeyfield’s compilation as the “musical chairs” type of planning.4 The committee in charge is all im­ portant. The ultimate success of the en­ tire program depends upon the ability 1900 This sketch contrasts the placement of fairway bunkers in three eras and energy of these men. Certainly, too, the superintendent and professional should be in on the planning. It is the committee, the professional and the superintendent who possess the reservoir of knowledge of their own golf course. The role of the architect is to bring in fresh ideas, experience and an un­ prejudiced outlook. It would, however, be the path of least resistance for both the committee and architect to accept slavishly all the archi­ tect’s preliminary ideas on the grounds that “ he has had more experience.” Without any reflection upon my profes­ sion I can state the new layout will be superior if the committee really func­ tions in a critical, contributive and con­ structive manner. References: 1. Jones, Robert Tyre Jr., Golf Is My Game. Chapt. 17. Doubleday and Co., Inc., 1960 2. USGA Green Section Staff—Specifications for a Method of Putting Green Construction. USGA Journal Vol. XIII, No. 5, Sept., 1960 3. Radko, A. M.—Renovation vs Rebuilding. USGA Journal, Vol. XII, No. 1, AprU, 1959 4. Bengeyfield, W. H.—A Guide for Green Com­ mittee Members of Golf Clubs. The USGA. Jan., 1961 20 USGA JOURNAL AND TURF MANAGEMENT: APRIL, 1962 THE REFEREE Decisions by the Rules of Golf Committees Example of Symbols: "USGA” indicates decision by the United States Golf Association. *'R & A” indi­ cates decision by the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews, Scotland. "61-1” means the first decision issued in 1961. "D” means definition. "R. 37-7” refers to Section 7 of Rule 37 in the 1961 Rules of Golf. WRONG BALL IN MATCH PLAY: WHEN TIME LIMIT FOR CLAIMS APPLIES USGA 61-5 R. 10, 11-la, 21-2 Q: A and B were playing a match. On Hole No. 8 A pushed his tee shot into the rough and among the trees. After looking for the ball for three or four minutes, he found a ball on the adjoining ninth fairway. Since the ball he found was the same make and number as the one he was playing, he finished the hole with it and won the hole. There was no dispute during the play of the hole, but B had helped A look for his ball, and one of the first places he had looked was on the adjoining ninth fairway and at the time he had seen no ball there. When A found his ball and played it, B remarked to one of the gal­ lery that he had looked in the ninth fair­ way and had seen no ball but he didn’t question A’s integrity. After A teed off on the ninth hole, a player who had teed off in front informed A that he (A) had played the wrong ball. On examination it was discovered that A had played the wrong ball on the eighth hole, and A admitted he played the wrong ball. Could B claim the eighth hole under Rule 21-2 or did A win the hole under Rule 11-la? The argument seems to hinge on whether A gave wrong information to B by at first identifying the wrong ball as A’s. Question by: Sam Dom New York, N. Y. A: A won the hole. B could not make a valid claim under Rule 21-2 after the time limit in Rule 11-la. Wrong information, as used in Rule 11-la, can cover various kinds of mis­ information, but it refers primarily to the number of strokes the player has taken, including penalty strokes—see Rule 10. It does not appear that A mis­ informed B in this case. ADVICE: INFORMATION AS TO LENGTH OF HOLE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE USGA 61-37 D. 2, R. 9-1 Q: The following incident took place in a singles match and the players were accompanied only by an observer. Neither of the players or the observei’ carried a card and as the length of the par 3 hole about to be played was not USGA JOURNAL AND TURF MANAGEMENT: APRIL, 1962 21 indicated on the tee marker, the player who had the honor asked the observer for that information. He replied, stating the length. The opponent immediately claimed the hole on the basis that the player had received advice. After play­ ing out the hole, the players consulted the referee, who disallowed the claim. As this is the first time that such an incident has come to my notice, I would be grateful if you would give me your opinion as to the correctness or other­ wise of the referee’s decision. Question by: Ian C. Morrison, Captain Prince of Wales Country Club Santiago, Chile A: The referee was correct. Request­ ing information as to the length of a golf hole is not asking advice under Defini­ tion 2 and Rule 9-1. This is factual in­ formation customarily made available to all players through the scorecard, the tee markers, etc. BALL MOVED BY OUTSIDE AGENCY: WHERE TO REPLACE WHEN LIE ALTERED USGA 6113 R. 11-4, 21-3, 24-4, 27-la Q: There seems to me to be a very un­ fair provision in the Rules of Golf where a wrong ball situation comes up in stroke play. A player whose ball has been wrongly played by someone else “shall place a ball on the spot from which the ball was wrongly played.” The spot from which this ball was wrongly played has probably been moved ten to twenty feet in the form of a divot and probably not replaced. Is it expected then that the player shall place his ball in the bottom of what, to the player, looks like the Grand Canyon? Question by: Brig. Gen. Stanley E. Ridderhoff Newport Beach, Calif. A: A competitor is entitled to the lie which his stroke gives him. In this case, the Rule of Equity (Rule 11-4) and the principle of Rule 24-4 should supplement Rule 21-3 (which you have quoted); the competitor should be permitted to place a ball as near as possible to the spot from which it was wrongly played in a lie similar to that which it originally oc­ cupied. The second paragraph of Rule 27-la, which is referred to in Rule 21-3, might also provide a basis for relief. (1) AGREEMENT TO WAIVE LOCAL RULE: TIME OF DISCOVERY IRRELEVANT (2) DISQUALIFICATION IN MATCH PLAY: EFFECT ON TOURNAMENT OF BELATED PENALTY USGA 61-14 R. 4, 11-la, 11-4 Q: During a match play competition, there was an infraction of Rule 4, where­ in A and B agreed to disregard a Local Rule. Rule 11-la clearly lays down when claims and penalties for points under dis­ pute must be made. But this Rule refers more to one competitor complaining against the other than to an infraction of Rule 4. The infraction took place on a Thurs­ day, and it was not brought to the atten­ tion of the Committee until the follow­ ing Monday, when a third person re­ ported it. To complicate matters, A, the winner of the match in question, played his next match on Sunday, and he won it. He had therefore played his next match before the Committee had even heard of the infraction committed in the first match. It is our belief that Rule 11-la does not limit the authority of the Committee to take action in the case of an infrac­ tion of Rule 4, but we wish to know whether the fact that a subsequent match had been played before the Committee stepped in automatically bars any further action on the part of the Committee. Question by: R. Duncan Manila, Philippines A: Both players could have been dis­ qualified for breach of Rule 4. The fact that A had subsequently played another match before the infraction was dis­ covered by the Committee is irrelevant. Your Committee is correct in its be­ lief that Rule 11-la does not limit the application of Rule 4. Rule 11-la applies in the event of a dispute or doubt be­ tween the players in a match. No such dispute is in evidence in this case. The status of the player who was de­ feated by A in his next match is a mat­ ter for the Committee to decide in ac­ cordance with equity—Rule 11-4. There are two principal choices as follows: (1) To reinstate the player beaten by A in the second match. 22 USGA JOURNAL AND TURF MANAGEMENT: APRIL, 1962 (2) To disqualify A only from the time the infraction was discovered by the Committee, thereby giving his opponent a default. BURROWING ANIMAL HOLES, RELIEF FROM: PROCEDURE AFTER DROP WHEN INTERFERENCE CLAIMED THROUGH STROKE AWAY FROM HOLE HAZARD: UMBRELLA PLACED IN, BEFORE PLAY USGA 61-1 R. 33-lf Q: What will be your ruling if a player goes into a bunker with his umbrella un­ der heavy rain and, prior to his play, places his umbrella in the bunker? Will he be penalized because the umbrella is not attached to the bag containing his clubs? If he is not penalized, the word “clubs” in Rule 33-lf has a broader mean­ ing of clubs and/or equipment. Question by: S. Takahata, President Hirono Golf Club Japan A: Placing an umbrella in a hazard prior to making a stroke is equivalent to placing clubs in a hazard and does not violate the Rules provided the player does nothing which might improve his lie of the ball or assist him in the subsequent play of the hole or otherwise violate Rule 33-1. DOUBT AS TO PROCEDURE IN STROKE PLAY: PLAYER MAY SEEK RULING AND NOT PLAY SECOND BALL USGA 61-17 R. 11-5, 37-7 Q.1: In a major stroke play Champion­ ship tournament is a player, under Rule 11-5, obliged to play two balls when in doubt as to his rights or procedure, or is he entitled to ask for someone from the Rules Committee governing the tourna­ ment to come to the location and give a ruling on the spot? A.l: The player is entitled to a ruling on the spot if the Committee has facility for thus serving. Rule 11-5 does not oblige the player to play a second ball when doubtful of his rights or procedure but, through the use of the word “may,” entitles him to do so if he so desires. The purpose of the Rule is to enable the player to avoid disqualification through unauthorized procedure (see Note 1 to the Rule). USGA 61-35 R. 11-4, 32-2 Q: The eleventh hole at Fort Ord Golf Course is a two level green sloping dras­ tically to the right and guarded by two bunkers. A player’s ball came to rest in the lower trap, close to the lip of the trap, and surrounded by three mounds freshly made by a gopher. The ball was not on any part of the gopher mounds, but was resting in the sand. The player contended he could play the ball back­ wards out of the trap and then chip onto the green, but one of the mounds inter­ fered with the backward stroke of the club which entitled him to relief and a free drop away from the mounds. How­ ever, had this occurred he would then have been in a position to pitch squarely to the pin. He also had a stroke at the ball, chipping out and straight forward slightly below the green, then chipping up onto the green for his putt, which he finally did. Just because he would like to play the ball backward, is he entitled to take re­ lief from a gopher mound when he would then play the ball forward toward the pin if he got the relief? Question by: Mrs. A. A. Eakin Fort Ord, Calif. A: No. the relief provided by Rule 32-2 is for the player’s stroke. Accordingly, if the relief is taken for a stroke in one direction the player must continue with that stroke. If he were to make his shot in another direction which then became available, the basis for the relief would be eliminated and a penalty incurred. BALL, HEATING OF: DEVICE SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED FOR PURPOSE PROHIBITED USGA 61-39 Misc. Q: Is it permissible under the Rules of Golf to use a device specifically designed to heat a golf ball? A: The Rules of Golf do not contem­ plate or permit the use of such a device, which must be prohibited as contrary to the spirit of the game. USGA JOURNAL AND TURF MANAGEMENT: APRIL, 1962 23 REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON UNIFORM ACCOUNTING AND TERMINOLOGY In 1957, a sub-committee of the USGA Green Section Committee was formed for the purpose of studying the matters of uniform terminology with respect to parts of the golf course and uniform accounting procedures for use by golf clubs. Mr. Allan Brown originally stated the need for such a study and was subsequently asked to serve as chairman of the sub committee. Membership of the committee is com­ posed of: Allan Brown, Chairman, Charles N. Eckstein, Dr. Marvin H. Ferguson, Edwin Hoyt, M. K. Jeffords, Jr. (deceased), Rear Adm. John S. Phillips, J. W. Richardson, L. A. Stemmons, Jr. BUSINESS APPROACH TO GOLF COURSE MAINTENANCE DEFINITIONS It was agreed that the first task was to determine the units by which mainte­ nance practices could be measured, and to define the parts of a golf course. On July 27, 1958, a report of the com­ mittee defined the parts of a golf course and established the units of measure­ ments to be recommended. These defini­ tions and recommended units of measure­ ments are reproduced here: GOLF COURSE: The whole area on which the game of golf is played, in­ cluding practice area and all club pro­ perty, except the grounds immediately around the club house and that used for private residences or for other recrea­ tional purposes. TEE: The tee is the starting place for the hole, consisting of a flat area main­ tained at short height of cut. It may be elevated or level with the ground. The exact position of the teeing area should be indicated by two markers. These should be movable so as to vary the posi­ tion of the front of the teeing area. The following color code is recommended for the tee markers. TEES Back Middle Front Women's COLOR Blue Course White Course Red Course Yellow Course TEE SLOPES: If the tee is elevated, the banks around the tee shall be known as the tee slopes and shall be considered a separate part of the course. FAIRWAY: The fairway is that part of a golf hole between the tee and green on which the turf is groomed to provide an improved lie; other than the rough, hazards, roads, paths, etc. ROUGH: The rough is that part of a golf hole between the tee and green other than fairway, hazards, roads, paths, etc., not including woodland or swampland, practice area, nursery area, and all other areas not regularly maintained within the boundaries of the course. The rough 24 USGA JOURNAL AND TURF MANAGEMENT: APRIL, 1962 is generally maintained by cutting or mowing at heights in excess of the height of the fairway. WOODLAND: Any area occupied by trees, saplings, bushes, etc., which re­ quires hand labor and cannot be main­ tained by gang mowers. SWAMPLAND OR BOG: Any low area containing an excessive amount of water, which cannot be maintained by the cus­ tomary golf course equipment. NURSERY AREA: Any area which has been set aside specifically for nursery purposes such as the cultivation of sod, trees, flowers, bushes, etc. PUTTING GREEN: The putting green is all the ground of the golf hole which is especially prepared for putting or otherwise defined, not including collars or aprons. COLLAR: The area immediately ad­ jacent to the putting surface that is main­ tained at an intermediate height of cut between the putting green and the fair­ way. APRON: The approach or area im­ mediately in front of the putting sur­ face, between the collar and the fairway, which is usually maintained at an inter­ mediate height of cut between the collar and the fairway. HAZARDS: Water—a water hazard is any lake, pond, river, ditch, surface drainage ditch or other open water course (regardless of whether or not it contains water), and anything of a similar na­ ture. All ground or water with­ in the margin of a water hazard, whether or not it be covered with any grow­ ing substance, is part of the water hazard. Bunker (Sand)—A Bunker is an area of bare ground, often a depression which is covered with sand, but not including the banks or slopes immediately sur­ rounding the Bunker. These should be considered part of the fairway. Bunker (Grass)—Same as sand Bunker, except the area is covered with grass instead of sand. Standard Units of Measurement The following units of measurements are recommended: 1. MAN HOURS: To provide a com­ mon denominator, it is suggested that “man hours” of labor be used to deter­ mine the amount of work on any part of the course. This can then be related to dollars according to the hourly rate pre­ vailing in any given area, or on any course. 2. ONE ACRE: It is suggested that this unit be used for measuring the amount of labor for maintaining fairways and rough. This multiple provides a con­ venient unit by which to measure the amount of labor and the cost of main­ taining any fairway or rough area, re­ gardless of size. Once having determined the amount of man-hours necessary to maintain an acre of fairway, this multiple can then be related to the total area of the fairway. 3. 1000 SQUARE FEET: It is suggested that this unit be used for measuring the amount of labor necessary to maintain putting greens, collars and aprons. System for Keeping Accounts Early in 1959, it was proposed that the committee proceed with a study of ac­ counting practices. Dr. M. H. Ferguson was assigned the task of devising record keeping forms which could be used in a “Pilot Study of Maintenance Costs.” Each Green Section staff member was assigned to distribute forms and supervise the conduct of the study in his area. It was proposed that five per cent of the USGA membership be asked to participate. The following forms, all of which were reproduced in the November, 1961 Journal were devised: Form 1.—a daily time sheet for the in­ dividual workman. Each workman should check the items on which he has worked during the day and record the hours in the appropriate column. Where the work does not fit any of the categories listed, the workman should check “Other” and make an explanatory note somewhere on the sheet. This form should be turned in daily to the superintendent. Form 2—a summary sheet for the trans­ fer of the information given on daily time tickets. The superintendent should use this summary sheet to make a daily record of the total hours spent on each phase of maintenance. At the end of each USGA JOURNAL AND TURF MANAGEMENT; APRIL, 1962 25 month, the daily entries may be totaled to provide a monthly summary of the time consumed by every operation. Form 2a—a weekly payroll form. On this form each workman’s time for each working day is recorded (this also is transferred from the daily time sheet Form 1). Form 2a provides a record of the total hours of labor for each man, his rate of pay, his total earnings, net pay and the totals of these items for the entire crew. Form 3—a basic data sheet which will serve as a description of the course with respect to the areas subject to various categories of maintenance. Units of maintenance will be derived from this information. We have found that aerial photos made to scale (obtainable from nearly all local Soil Conservation Service offices) are extremely useful for deter­ mining areas. A planimeter can be used to obtain fast and accurate measurements of area from these photos. Form 4—a summary sheet showing supplies purchased. This information should be drawn from invoices or pur­ chase orders. These data, together with year end inventories, will provide figures on supplies used and their value. Form 5—a summary sheet of equip­ ment and maintenance costs. If the club maintains a “repair parts” inventory, this must be considered in determining the cost of repair parts used. Form 6—an inventory of equipment. This should show each item of equipment owned by the club, an identifying num­ ber, its estimated value, its estimated useful remaining life, and the annual rate of depreciation. Small items, such as hand tools, should be placed on a separate inventory. A budget item usually takes care of re­ placement needs of such “expendable” items. Form 7—an equipment orepation record. This should show the item of equipment, an identifying number, and a record of its operation. This record usually is the responsibility of the superintendent, though he may pass the responsibility to the operator of the equipment. This record will have no value from the stand­ point of maintenance costs, but it will be helpful in establishing “expected use­ ful life” of equipment. Pilot Study Each staff member was provided with a sufficient number of packages of forms to supply fifteen clubs. With 8 staff members, the total number of clubs was 120, which approached the desired 5 per cent. The packages were distributed during the fall and early winter of 1959 and participants were asked to keep records during 1960. Results of Pilot Study Approximately one-fourth of the pilot study packages were returned in response to a request for them in January, 1961. Only twenty-one cooperators followed the study through completely. Thus the re­ turned completed sample amounts to less than 1% of the present USGA mem­ bership. However, following discussions with members of the Agricultural Eco­ nomics Market Survey Department at Texas A. & M., it was concluded that such a sample is quite reliable in deter­ mining unit costs. These specialists pointed out that the drawing of broad conclusions was unwarranted but that data with respect to time required for performance of any particular unit of maintenance was quite dependable. GREENS FAIRWAYS TEE S Mowing Hrs. Per 1000 Sq.Ft. :Irri- :gating :Hrs. :Per :1000 :Sq.Ft. .122 • .15U .076 : .052 Culti­ vating Hrs. Per 1000 Sq.Ft. .518 .082 Spray­ ing Hrs. Per 1000 Sq.Ft. . 21U .02U High Low Average .099 : .09U .22U .101 Irri­ gating Hrs.per Acre Total for Season Ferti lizing Hrs.per Acre Total for Season Culti­ vating Hrs.per Acre Total for Season Moving Hrs. Per 1000 Sq.Ft. : Repair : Hrs.per : 1000 : Sq.Ft. : Total for : Season Ball Washer and Towels Total for Season 1U.8 .51 6.76 3.^7 .25 1.62 U.O .178 : 12.1 .62 .0U7 : .25 278 8 1.70 .096 ; 3.97 1U3.6 Moving Hrs. Per Acre • 322 .107 .205 TABLE 1 — Figures given in this table indicate the amount of variation in the time required to perform certain units of maintenance. The operations selected are repre­ sentative of all those performed on the golf course. 26 USGA JOURNAL AND TURF MANAGEMENT: APRIL, 1962 High, low, and average unit costs for the 21 clubs are listed in Table 1. It should be pointed out that the aim of golf course maintenance is not always toward doing a job in the least amount of time. It is usually more prudent to do a job slower and better than faster and poorer. It should be understood also that the participating clubs were quite vari­ able in their maintenance standards, in their budget, and in geographic location; consequently, length of season. Several questions were asked relative to the adequacy of the system. Most of those who returned completed sets of records found the system to be a work­ able one, but there were numerous sug­ gestions offered. The most common criticism was that the system was too complex. Several of those who did not follow through after agreeing to a trial of the system said that some of their workmen could not read or write and were therefore unable to fill out the daily time ticket.. This ticket (Form 1) is, of course, basic to the entire procedure of distributing labor costs. Another deterrent, though ex­ pressed by only two or three superin­ tendents, is a lack of familiarity with this system compared with one already in use. Some participants offered different sys­ tems which they felt were less complex. However, they appeared to us to be equally difficult if not more so. Thus, a system with which a superintendent is familiar has more appeal than a new system. One other objection (mostly from those who did not complete the records) was that too much time was re­ quired. One participant pointed out that a simple diary of maintenance operations often furnished a sufficient record for the estimates of costs for budgeting pur­ poses. From the foregoing paragraph the con­ clusion may be drawn that some partici­ pants urged further simplification. On the other hand, some collaborators thought the record forms needed ex­ pansion. They suggested a provision for recording sick time and vacation time, “waiting time” for the time workmen waited for golfers to pass. One man felt that the “Other” designation needed to be used for too many miscellaneous items and that these should be enumerated. It was encouraging to note that about half of those who completed the records indicated that they planned to continue use of this trial system regardless of the outcome of this study. In some cases this would supplant a system already in ef­ fect. Thus, there are three suggestions em­ bodied in the responses of collaborators: (1) simplify, (2) expand, (3) use as it. In response to a question about how much time was required, the collabora­ tors estimated an average of about two hours per week. Asked if this amount of time was justified, all answered in the affirmative. Comments Solicited The committee invites the comments of Journal readers on this report and upon the record forms presented here. Because the pilot study was limited to a small percentage of clubs, it is very likely that other superintendents and chairmen may be able to make valuable suggestions. They will be much appreciated. Principles of Organization By LYNN A. SMITH Member USGA Green Section Committee, Pasadena, California There is nothing too unique in the management of a golf course and I cannot claim to offer a panacea for all of the problems involved. In the brochure which the Southern California Golf As­ sociation sends to all golfers who pay their per capita fee, the comment is made that the Association contributes to club management because “In a ‘business’ where there are annual changes in offi­ cers and committees, the balance wheel of continuing analysis of operations is tremendously valuable.” The first step in the organization of our “business” is the selection of the Green Committee Chairman. The most im­ portant attributes are a great deal of free time, a dedicated spirit, and a good enough sense of humor to take all of the abuse which is bound to come his way and still come up smiling! More technical competence is required for this USGA JOURNAL AND TURF MANAGEMENT: APRIL, 1962 27 work than for other committees as the chairman must consult on problems which are foreign to the average club member. A second consideration is that the chairman be selected with the future in mind so that there will be continuity in operating the golf course. Long range programs must be formulated and carried forward for successful course operation, and constant changes in direction or em­ phasis on long range plans can do ir­ reparable damage. Selection of other members of the Green Committee is also a most im­ portant step. Men should be selected who have aptitudes for the various types of problems encountered on the course whether this means making things grow, engineering skill, or the ability to co­ ordinate course conditions with playing conditions. Most important, someone must be in training to be the next Chairman of the Green Committee so that he may have an adequate period of preparation. The Chairman of the Green Committee must coordinate his activities with all of the other club committees, particularly with the Finance and Budget Committee. To begin on a budget, review what has been spent for the past several years from a historical standpoint, then estab­ lish your aims and objectives for the coming year. No club can appropriate enough money to do everything that might be done on a golf course, so choose how to spend what money is available to do what most needs doing. It is quite common for the chairman of any committee to do most of the work. The chairman of a Green Committee is quite apt to be addicted to early rising so that he can get around the course with the superintendent before going to the office, and the principle function of a meeting of the Committee is to hear a report on what has happened and a pro­ jection of what is going to happen with the chairman and superintendent as co- stars—subject, of course, to approval by the Committee. A new plan is to assign various phases of course operation, such as fairways, trees and shrubs, greens, traps, tees, course housekeeping, equipment, and cart paths, to as many subcommittees as may seem appropriate, each with its own group supervisor. The Chairman super­ vises all activities, retains long range planning, and also has full control of the superintendent and full responsibility for the crew. Each group reports to the parent committee and group personnel is rotated among the sub-committees. Another principle is the simple busi­ ness maxim of putting everything in writing. It may seem cumbersome to you, but try issuing memorandums and in­ structions on standard forms with three copies. The superintendent receives two copies, one of which provides space for his reply or his report that the work has been completed—the third copy is re­ tained by the Chairman until this reply is received by him. There will be very few items overlooked or forgotten when this system is in effect. The Green Committee should be a policy making group and only a policy making group. The superintendent should be asked to attend all meetings of the Committee to give him a voice in estab­ lishing policies. The Committee should decide how many dollars are to be spent for fertilizer, but not when or how it should be applied. The Committee must not become enmeshed in detail. Another principle that must be ob­ served is that the superintendent shall have only one boss, the Green Commit­ tee Chairman, and the men on the crew shall have only one boss, the superin­ tendent. Any successful business has clearly defined lines of authority, and it is a great mistake for any member of the Committee to start issuing orders without clearing them through the Chair­ man. It is even worse for club members to assume that they are entitled to issue orders. Dr. Gene Nutter stated some require­ ments for superintendents in a recent article, and this could serve as the entire text for this paper because it points quite specifically to those areas where our “business” can be helped by extending assistance to the superintendent where it is most needed. We cannot dismiss turf grass technology or knowledge of course operation from consideration even though Dr. Nutter gives superintendents an 85% grade. While we would not hire a superin­ tendent who was not presumably skilled in the art—the emphasis here is on art and not science—we must realize that 28 USGA JOURNAL AND TURF MANAGEMENT: APRIL, 1962 the vast majority of superintendents came up the hard way to the top of their profession and have learned by doing, not by studying chemistry, or physics, or plant morphology, or business manage­ ment. The most logical way to close the gap between that theoretical figure of 85% and our goal of perfection is to sub­ scribe to the USGA Green Service, and this is the best way to have a technically trained agronomist interpret the latest scientific developments in terms that will be understood by the practical mind of the working superintendent. Increase Efficiency Labor management might properly be grouped with work planning and business management and Dr. Nutter has assigned a 45% efficiency rating to these items. It seems to be an elementary conclusion that the most logical place to start to control golf course costs is by increasing the efficiency of labor utilization and this is the best direction for the Green Committee Chairman and members of his Committee to emphasize in helping the superintendent. Here we are involved in something other than technical problems, and normal business principles can be ap­ plied to good advantage with plenty of room for improvement. Golf course costs are constantly rising and this is confirmed by every available survey.* Labor costs are by far the largest cost item, amounting to more than all other items of course maintenance put together, and are the most logical ap­ proach to stabilizing a situation which may be getting out of hand. It would be easy to maintain a golf course with a man assigned to every hole plus supple­ mentary help to do odd jobs, but this is obviously out of the question and the mark of a top superintendent is to ac­ complish maximum results with a mini­ mum work force. The Chairman of each Green Committee must help his super­ intendent trim his work force to make the dollars fit the aims and objectives in his budget. Dr. Nutter gave a rating of only 1% to the job done by superintendents on pub­ lic relations and our principles of or­ ganization would be incomplete if our “business” did not sell itself and its pro­ ducts. The chairman should utilize every possible means to sell the membership on what is being done to and for the golf course. At the same time, it never hurts for the superintendent to expose himself to members to do his own selling job. *Copies of a report covering costs of golf course maintenance of 29 clubs in Southern California during 1960 may be obtained by writing Southern California Golf Association, 1709 West Eighth Street, Los Angeles 17, California. COMING EVENTS May 28-30 Florida Turf-Grass Trade Show Florida Turf-Grass Association Deauville Hotel, Miami Beach, and Plantation Field Laboratory of the Florida Experimental Station System, Fort Lauderdale June 4 Central Plains Turf Foundation Field Day (For further information write to Dr. Ray A. Keen, Dept, of Horticulture, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas) June 4-5 Mississippi Section American Society of Agronomy Turf Conference State College, Miss. WAere Does the Club Dollar Go? By CARL JEHLEN General Manager, Baltusrol Golf Club, Springfield, N. J. I will attempt to tell you “Where the Club Dollar Goes.” To be a bit more specific, I might say that we will direct ourselves to “Where the Country Club Dollar Goes,” as opposed to the cash dis­ tribution requirements of city clubs, luncheon clubs, and athletic clubs.. Coun­ try clubs are our specific interest, and vary from other types of clubs generally through the greater amount of real pro­ perty which they provide, maintain and service. This real property, or golf course, aspect of the country club gives it its basic reason for existence, but it also places on the club a unique dollar requirement and dollar distribution. As club officers, club managers and golf course superintendents, we surely feel the heavy pressure of responsibility to get a full dollar of value for every club dollar that we spend. There are un­ doubtedly times when we feel that hav­ ing accomplished this, there are still not enough club dollars available for all our USGA JOURNAL AND TURF MANAGEMENT: APRIL, 1962 29 particular areas of operation, and oft- times wonder, why can’t a larger portion of the budget be provided for our opera­ tion. It is obvious that being charged with this responsibility of maintaining a top rate club, and spending club dollars judiciously to this end, we have a very profound interest in the distribution of the monies received. There is nothing mysterious about this distribution. In every organization the information on an­ nual distribution is readily available to you through the annual report of your club treasurer. Your annual report in­ evitably gives the result of the last year’s operation through a balance sheet and a profit and loss statement. The pro­ fit and loss statement should be of more immediate interest to you since it re­ ports the net operating result of the club departments, and the net amount of club dollars that each department contributed to the operation or required from the operation. For example, every club anti­ cipates that its bar operation will result in a profit, and thus net club dollars will be contributed from this department. By the same token, every private club realizes that the greens and grounds or golf course operation will have a greater expense requirement than the amount of direct income received, and that this department will require club dollars for satisfactory performance. Through exam­ ination of the profit and loss statement, you can determine generally the areas that required club dollars, to what extent they required club dollars, and how this requirement was met. The club balance sheet is not as pertinent to today’s dis­ cussion. The balance sheet basically rep­ resents the state of the club’s health, whether its assets and liabilities are in proper balance, and how it stands finan­ cially after the club dollar has been dis­ tributed and all current expenses have been paid. Of course, the most pertinent analysis of the distribution of expense within your own operating department is the monthly departmental operating report. In my estimation it is essential that all department heads receive the monthly report. The minimum essential information that this report should carry, is a complete breakdown of income and expenses for the month under considera­ tion, a comparison with the same month last year, a cumulative report for the year to-date, a comparison with the previ­ ous year to-date, and the current annual budget. However, I believe that bringing this information into proper focus for today’s discussion can best be initiated by using the data contained in studies and surveys that compile the combined expenditures of a large number of clubs, such as are published annually by two of the leading firms specializing in club ac­ counting. I suggest we examine one of these recent annual studies to provide us with the average ratio of club dollars spent. The one I have selected states that the distribution of the revenue dollar of fifty clubs for the 1960-1961 annual fiscal period was as follows: Out of each dol­ lar, 40 c was spent for payroll, and 6c for fringe benefits, or a total of 46^ for wages and benefits; 23 c was spent for the cost of goods sold in the various service departments such as restaurant, bar and tobacco, of that 13