The Nation’s political leaders are finally addressing a long-brewing problem. They are concerned about the declining ability of golfers and their golf instructors. Since most of our national leaders play golf at some point, they claim to have a strong background in golf techniques and golf instructional practices. Based on their experiences, they are placing the blame on the golf instructors and their associations for the lack of ability of our nation’s golfers and the lack of dominance in international competition.
To address this national concern, the policymakers determined that the best way to improve golfers was to have higher standards and better methods of golf accountability. Even after all of the new technology, equipment, and golf balls, the nation’s average golfer’s scores were stagnant, if not declining. One political leader stated, “We can not continue to spend money on our nation’s courses and golf equipment unless we see some drastic improvement. Simply put, our golfers are no longer ranked high, internationally as before. Our nation’s golfers are at risk.” We need to adopt a program called “No Golfer Left Behind (NGLB): A Plan to Rebuild Our Nation’s Pride in Golf.”
Accountability and Testing: First, there would be a modest standard that all golfers need to meet to graduate to the “approved” golfer status. The standard or passing score, for example, would be a score of 80 or lower. There would be one “round” of golf on one day each year where all golfers would be expected to score 80 or lower to be considered an “approved” golfer.
Second, with the belief that all golfers basically have the same potential ability, physical make-up, and basic aptitude, the handicapping system would be eliminated since it was considered a socialist plot to take from the rich and give to the poor golfer. The handicapping system seemed to be rewarding the less able and penalizing the “gifted” golfer. There is the expectation that no matter where the “less able” golfer played or the equipment used – from the country club course to the urban, par three theme-parks, all would be considered the same on the annual “round” day.
Third, on the “round” day, all golfers would submit their scores to be analyzed and reviewed by the regional “Golf Standards Commission.” The Commission would then release the “club” scores to the media so the community would have a reference point of the well-being of their golfers and the effectiveness of their golf professionals and staff. The was like the “iceberg effect.” Report the scores that everyone can see and ignore the underlying causes.
Results and Suggestions: The golf instructor’s own evaluation, and in some cases, a raise and/or promotion to “head professional,” would be based on the success of his or her golfers. Of course, some golf instructors thought the member’s scores were more dependent on access to golf courses, available funding for golf instruction, and even golf clubs. These malcontents and their comments were felt to be excused. The standards and accountability policies were designed with the belief that all golfers can achieve the “approved” status. However, it the average scores did not meet the minimum, the golfers and their golf instructors were considered to be part of a “failing” golf club.
After an analysis of the results, the instructors for the failing golfers were instructed to start prescribed and approved golf clinics on driving, chipping, putting and distribute Golf Commission approved books and DVDs on how to improve at golf. As one policymaker stated: “If only the less able golfer would try harder, keep the head down and the right elbow in, then their golf scores would improve significantly. To improve, the “less able” must be more serious and try harder at improving their golf.”
Findings and Unanticipated Outcomes: The less able golfers soon realized that some other golfers were naturally good while others had no chance of reaching 80 by the time the next “round” or in their lifetime. The more able golfers and the pros also realized this difference in ability and suggested to some of the “less able” to transfer to another golf courses or quite the program. The strategy was to eliminate the “less able” golfers, the club average golf scores at course would certainly improve.
However, behind the scenes, most of the “good” instructors at the failing clubs were updating their resume in hopes of finding a “better” golf club. Eventually, the best instructors left for the good golf courses, thus leaving the less able golfers with the less experienced instructors.
Another unanticipated outcome was the increasing number of golf instructors encouraging their clients to use multiple “mulligans” during the game. (Modified Campbell’s Law: The more important the score takes on, the more likely it, and the people who depend on it, will become corrupted. For example, Enron, elections, and Atlanta Schools)
Sixth, the “less able” felt it was not fair that they had to compete with golfers who had better clubs and golf practice facilities that came with the “better” golf courses. There were frustrations and a sense of hopelessness for many. Some simply gave up on golf.
The Golfing Standards Commission, hearing that there was an increase in golfer discontent, held hearings to find out why golfers were having such difficulty improving their golf score. Despite the comments from golfers that there were differences in ability, equipment, and courses, the Standards Board said that all golfers must score 80 or lower, even if they grew up in a community that did not even have a golf course.
After a couple of years, it seemed that the game no longer had a sense of fairness, especially since the handicapping system was discarded. Most of the more able golfers moved to the better courses (further compounding the average golf scores of the marginal courses) or joined “private” golf courses. (Interestingly, private golf clubs didn’t have to deal with NGLB regulations nor had to publish their golf scores in the local media.) After five years, the Golfing Standards Commission issued a statement claiming that there was finally a significant improvement in golf scores and declared the NGLB golfing Standards and Accountability policy a success.
The NCLG official statement: By imposing golfing accountability, the annual cycle of poor golf scores have finally been reversed. By having an emphasis on golfer accountability, we have turned the corner. The golfers of our nation can be proud of their accomplishments. We are ranking higher than ever before when we compare our golfer scores to other nationals around the world.
The untold story: The number of golfers in our nation declined significantly, Some say, it is about time to have a little accountability, even though about 50% of “want to be” approved golfers are now taking up scuba diving and mountain climbing. Now, there are a number of investigations relating to reports that some golf instructors from the “rapidly improving” clubs were even manipulating golf scores to make it appear that the average scores at their course were much improved.
As an interesting footnote, during the hearings, there was a statement made that NOT ONE decision about NGLB accountability was based on interviews with golf instructors, any valid and reliable research about ways of improving golf scores, surveys involving golfers. A former golfer did make a comment outside the hearing room that it was ironic that the one game that teaches honesty, integrity, courtesy and determination as well and planning and risk-taking, was now only measuring the number of swings.
By Jack McKay