Opportunity?

[JESII]

Along the lines of Rhambo's "never let a good crisis go without taking advantage of it"...is there a long term opportunity to come out of the problems with Tiger?

Specifically - Could the current environment embolden the rules makers to move more aggressively on an equipment roll-back?


Once we come to a concensus on that (no, I'm serious...) I'll ask the obvious follow up of "how would an across-the-board roll back impact the architecture of the course(s) you play?


I think the impact from these "transgressions" will be GINORMOUS to the bottom line of every golf entity with ties to either Madison Ave. or Wall St., and I think it will last a while. On the "opportunity" side the USGA need fear less about their liability in a lawsuit but do they actually even believe in a need for a roll-back?  On the advertising side, the PGA Tour's message obviously has to change very dramatically, and very soon...what better marketing initiative than something about shotmaking? But, how quick can that move in comparison to our collective memories with respect to high profile slip-ups?

[Mark Pearce]

Jim,

I think your premise that the recession (and the downturn in turnover driven by Tiger's problems) will make manufacturers less  litigious is flawed.  My experience (and I am a litigator, albeit not in the USA) is that litigation is counter-cyclic, businesses are more, rather than less, inclined to litigate when times are hard.  In fact, I suspect that the USGA's willingness to become embroiled in litigation is rather more likely to be reduced, rather than the manufacturers.  Add to that that Tiger was more likely than most to desire a rollback (since it would be likely to emphasise his superiority) and he will, presumably, be less influential than before and I'm afraid I think roll-back has become less, rather than more, likely.

[JESII]

Your experience is certainly better than mine with respect to litigation so I'll defer on the premise I began with that due to the manufacturer's have shallower pockets for the forseeable future, might the USGA / R&A move on this (admittedly, a simplistic summary) in the short term...but factor in that this groove ruling change is, in my opinion, a first step towards a roll-back. I believe the ruling bodies are on the mission. What I don't know is, what would they do if they had no litigation concerns?

I can understand your perspective about the manufacturer's increased litigousness (word?) in a down economy, but why would the ruling bodies be even less interested in litigation? Is it because their pockets are shallower as well, and they wouldn't actually recognize a monetary reward if they achieved victory?

As to the advertising opportunity of a roll-back, I think it's just that for the PGA Tour. You're not going to compete with the NFL (bomb and gauge) mentality anymore so let's find the educated audience...

[Bill_McBride]

Jim,

I think your premise that the recession (and the downturn in turnover driven by Tiger's problems) will make manufacturers less  litigious is flawed.  My experience (and I am a litigator, albeit not in the USA) is that litigation is counter-cyclic, businesses are more, rather than less, inclined to litigate when times are hard.  In fact, I suspect that the USGA's willingness to become embroiled in litigation is rather more likely to be reduced, rather than the manufacturers.  Add to that that Tiger was more likely than most to desire a rollback (since it would be likely to emphasise his superiority) and he will, presumably, be less influential than before and I'm afraid I think roll-back has become less, rather than more, likely.

As a general contractor (commercial construction, not golf  ), I can confirm Mark's premise re more litigation in hard times.  At the end of the job these days, customers are looking for a reason not to pay.  Ergo, more legal collection action.

[JESII]

But Bill (and Mark chime in here), this wouldn't be about the USGA not paying for services performed...does that change the dynamic / motivation for the plantiff?

My premise had two prongs, I also believe the manufacturer's should be looking for a different way to appeal to us.

[Carl Nichols]

Jim,

I think your premise that the recession (and the downturn in turnover driven by Tiger's problems) will make manufacturers less  litigious is flawed.  My experience (and I am a litigator, albeit not in the USA) is that litigation is counter-cyclic, businesses are more, rather than less, inclined to litigate when times are hard.  In fact, I suspect that the USGA's willingness to become embroiled in litigation is rather more likely to be reduced, rather than the manufacturers.  Add to that that Tiger was more likely than most to desire a rollback (since it would be likely to emphasise his superiority) and he will, presumably, be less influential than before and I'm afraid I think roll-back has become less, rather than more, likely.

In my experience, businesses aren't *more* likely to want to litigate in down times, but there usually isn't a significant drop in litigation, and that's why it's fairly counter-cyclical [especially when compared to deal work, though not when compared to bankruptcy and workouts].  There's a certain amount of optional litigation that, in my experience, just doesn't get filed during down times.  I don't think that the manufacturers would view these suits as "optional," however.

[Mark Pearce]

Jim,

I guess my reasoning is that the USGA is more likely to be scared of litigation, since it has little, if anything to gain and only has a vast expense to contemplate, whilst the manufacturers perceive that litigation might protect their income from bomb and gouge gear.  Like you, I see that position as flawed and an opportunity for them to offer different gear.  However, any rule change that requires non-elite golfers to buy new gear is likely to be controversial and padded with transitional provisions that result in effective bifurcation. 

I guess there may be an opportunity there for manufacturers - it seems to me that wedge manufacturers have been pushing this years models, perhaps hoping that we'll stockpile square grooved weges for use between now and 2024.

[Bill Brightly]

As much as I want a roll back on the ball, and I think it would save clubs clubs lots of money in the "arms race," I have concluded that it will never happen for this reason: the average golfer (or worse than average) LIKES the added distance they get with today's equipment. They don't give a rats ass about golf course architecture, shot value or the architect's intent.

If we took votes at all our courses and asked: would you give up 10 yards on your tee ball and the pros would give up 40 yards and preserve the architect's intent...I gurantee the proposition would fail at just about every club:( 

So I assume that the manufacturers know this as well, and are simply giving the vast majority of their golfing customers what they want. Please pass the Pro V1's...