OCR Text |
Show 4 OPINION Par should measure excellence in golf Tuesday June 19, 2012 www.dailyutahchronicle.corn P ar was meant to be a measure of excellence in golf. However, players on today's PGA Tour are far below par, with scores unheard of to once-a-week amateurs and pros of eras past alike. The increasing irrelevance of par strikes at the integrity and durability of the game. Yet, not much of anything is said regarding how or why professional golf has abandoned par. Technology, coupled with architecture of a bygone era, supplies an answer. In the decades following the 19505, the set-up template for the classic courses conceived by then-president of the United States Golf Association Richard Tufts was not significantly reformed, as there were seldom dramatic advancements in golf technology that might have made Tufts' model unequipped to handle the game's best. With each return to the storied venues, such as Augusta National, Oakmont and Winged Foot, there was a comforting familiarity — a warm tradition from the toughness of the rough to the pimento cheese sandwiches sold at 195os prices at The Masters. Fast forward to the 2000S. Drivers grew to 460 cc. They became lighter, stronger and more aerodynamic. They were designed with new amalgams of metals in shapes conceived by computer models, rather than handcrafted wood. Changes in composites led to lighter, stronger shafts too, replacing the hickory shafts of Jones, Hogan and Palmer. New machinery manufactured "vgrooves" on wedges, which worked to increase the spin with which players were able to hit short shots. Golf ball design became not an art, but a science, with dimple patterns and core materials scrutinized to a meticulous degree. Opinion Editor With technology's aid at the turn of the century, players began picking up Jo yards or more on their tee shots each year. They hit it higher, with more spin, more easily. The storied courses, formerly steeped in a lore of difficulty, were picked apart masterfully yet effortlessly — to the point that, when Tiger won by 12 shots after the 1997 Masters, Augusta National "Tiger-proofed" its course by adding length and narrowing fairways. Save Augusta's Tiger-proof, few other tournaments attempted to match course setup to emerging technology. This is how and why the birdie barrage on the PGA Tour began. And even at Augusta, birdies and eagles still abound on Sunday in April. At the U.S. Open, however, such is no longer the case. It remains perhaps the lone case of golf as it should be played. This is because the USGA, which sets up the U.S. Open, is determined to restore the value of par to professional golf. The USGAs set-up creed was expressed by former President Sandy Tatum in 1974 after the infamous Massacre at Winged Foot, during which a five over par won the championship. "We aren't trying to embarrass the best players in the world — we're trying to identify them," Tatum said. This is the approach the PGA tour should take by retrofitting venues to compensate for the new, technological breed of golf. The proverbial line the USGA LUIGI GHERSI/The Daily Utah Chronicle walks? Tough vs. unfair. When balls rolled off the 18th green at Olympic Club in 1998, it was unfair. When balls bounced over the seventh green at Shinnecock Hills in 2003, forcing tournament officials to pause play to water the grass, it was unfair. On the other hand, when Torrey Pines brought about a tournament score of one over par, and led to an i8-hole playoff and then sudden death between Tiger Woods and Rocco Mediate, it was tough. Likewise, this weekend, when a revamped Olympic Club challenged players to a one-over final score, the course was tough, plain and simple — not unfair. The line the USGA walks is arbitrary. Charges of unfair set-ups and of a game that is too hard, which arise when the USGA crosses the line, are themselves the product of a new era in golf, in which players have become accustomed to the one thing golf has never been and should never be — an LETTER TO THE EDITOR Column not aligned with religious-minded Editor: I am religious, political and enjoy a well thought out debate, but the column, "Eliminate Religion from Politics," (The Daily Utah Chronicle, June 5, 2012, by Joseph Suh) was a blatant assault on the reasoning abilities and intelligence of religiously minded people. Suh uses a quote from Thomas Jefferson. Unfortunately he must have neglected to read any other of Jefferson's writings or just the rest of the Danbury address in its unedited form, where Jefferson makes the then common Republican appeal that to remain a sovereign nation and a land of liberties we must not have the head of the church and the nation be vested in the same person, or in other words, not have a nationally sponsored religion. It was a right and liberty of all citizens that they may choose to worship their deity by whatever means they desire, or in the words of the first amendment, authored in part by Jefferson, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Let's look at a few of Suh's other assumptions and fallacies; First he assumes that any person who has developed their life and belief system on religious principals must be in a state of permanent fallacy and uninterested in anything but what they already believe. It appears that either Suh has never experienced religious belief or only consults the weakest and least intelligent of the religious group, because in order to develop a belief system you must ask questions, think, ponder, research, experiment and grow. To say that "arguing from a position of a faith" requires the adoption of a single doctrine or dogma is completely ignorant of the massive differences within the faith based world and frankly hypocritical; don't we all argue from a position of faith that our foundational beliefs are true regardless of what or who they are based on? Suh suggests that a person of faith can do no better than to only "leave little room for compromise and agreement." Yet religions world wide cross cultures, political and state barriers, race and creed, wealth and poverty to bring people together in compromise and agreement. To reinforce his doubtful attack Suh references to two issues that are of particular concern to many people; evolutionary theory and normality of homosexuality. The current THEORY, not law, of evolution is a thorny problem since there are entire historical periods, Cambian and Precambrian, missing from the evidence lockers and it goes against another theory that has become through rigorous proving; second law of thermodynamics which clearly states that all systems move toward maximum entropy, thus disturbing the idea that simpler systems under dramatic conditions will produce more complex systems eventually resulting in life systems and flora and fauna. The science behind evolutionary theory is far from irrefutable as a simple demonstration from paleontologist Jack Horner illustrating the hubris and mistakes of science. Homosexual normality is an ironic argument for an author emphasizing the necessity of experimentation and data since the term normal is inherently defined by each person differently and being subject to massive fluxes in interpretation based upon current perception cannot be ascertained as obtainable and measurable. Finally and most importantly politics is the study or application of administration and governance to a group or the body politic. To attempt to remove religious connotation or understanding from political discussion is to remove a portion of the body politic from representation. To enforce a law that would make religious references illegal is to not only disregard the history of humanity but to discredit our achievements in many areas but especially related to the founding documents and persons of this country which we are guided by. Instead of assuming that people who don't agree with you are ignorant of reason, argument, the scientific method and generally devoid of the ability to think, realize that the answers they have received might be different than yours or maybe your not even asking the same questions. Joe Speciale easy game. The USGA crosses the line because it errs on the side of toughness. When given the choice between a course that players roll over and a course that rolls over players, it errs on the side of the course, and in so doing, on the side of the game — its integrity, credibility and tradition. Par, then, becomes the standard by which good golf is measured. This is as it should be. letters@chronicle.utah.edu Online Comments "Eliminate Religion from Politics" (Joseph Suh on June 5, 2012) Opinion Bill Painter posted on 06.12.12 at 11 p.m. Smithsonian has a good article about why we have a separation of church and state titled 'America's True History of Religious Tolerance'.Your"impossibility of religious neutrality" sounds true to those who are not aware that the American issue base today is still loaded with issues chosen in the fifties to stir a fight in Americans against communism which happened to be mostly atheistic.Those issues still actively politicize the American Christians today who are applied against Muslim fundamentalism in the oil rich Middle East in an effort to keep world trade from experiencing oil shocks by another intolerant religious doctrine. Our separation of church and state was necessary (see the Smithsonian article above) because religious doctrines are so intolerant they war with one another. It seems the American economic conservatives needed the American Christians politicized, and the issue base makes it appear "religious neutrality in government" is impossible, but let's see what happens when the energy picture changes and America and the world is no longer dependent on the very religious Middle Eastern oil. Economic conservatives need science and education to compete globally, so the current issue base will change.The superstitious Christians will no longer be needed and science will be promoted along with education. Mark Hausam posted on 06.06.12 at 12:29 p.m. Very good statement of an atheist perspective, River Nils. Of course, as you think that atheism is the rational way to go, you want laws to be based on that perspective.As a Christian, I think rather that Christianity is the rational way to go, and so I want laws based on a Christian point of view. Atheism is no more neutral than Christianity, unless by "neutral" you really mean "true" or "rational." In which case, I would assert that it is really Christianity that is "neutral" in that sense, since I see it as true and rational. If "neutral" means "based on principles everyone agrees with" (which is a more accurate definition of the word in this context, I think), your position is no more neutral than mine, for obvious reasons. River Nils Letters to the editor should be sent to letters@chronicle.utah.edu . Letters should be fewer than 400 words and must include the writer's name. Letters from students should also include the writer's major and year in school. Letters from U faculty and staff should include department and title. Letters from alumni should include the year the writer graduated. All other letters must include the sender's name and city of residence. All letters become property of The Daily Utah Chronicle and may be edited for style, length and content. We want your 2 cents! Apply to be an opinion writer for The Daily Utah Chronicle Contact Jake Rush at j.rush@chronicle.utah.edu posted on 06.06.12 at 12:22 p.m. Religious people too often mistake atheism as a rival faith. But it's not. There's no faith involved because it's based on the evidence of what we can tangibly quantify.Therefore, it's really a neutral perspective and should be the basis for policy making. On a personal note, faith shouldn't be the basis for policy making because I don't hold faith to be a value. Faith is just another way of saying you're letting someone else think for you. Mark Hausam posted on 06.06.12 at 12:03 p.m. The upshot of this article is this: Don't base laws on religious worldviews; base them on the atheistic worldview instead. It makes sense that an atheist would want that, just as it makes sense that a Christian would want laws that reflect Christian beliefs and values. Everyone wants law to reflect their own worldview, because they think it is true. But I think that atheism is false, and that Christianity is true, and so I seek to have laws based on Christianity. If I am right about Christianity, that, and not what Suh suggests, is what makes perfect sense. |