[Tony Ristola]

USGA BACKTRACKS

From the USGA homepage.

Anyone think the ball will be rolled back anytime soon?


1/10/02
E-mail address: mediarelations@usga.org


USGA Amends Proposal To Limit Clubhead Size

Far Hills, N.J. – The United States Golf Association has amended its proposal, announced on Dec. 19, 2001, to place restrictions for the first time on clubhead size. The USGA now proposes to set the maximum size of clubheads at 460 cubic centimeters (cc) plus and additional 10 cc to account for differences in manufacturing processes and measurement variations.

"I’d like to stress that our initial proposal was just that, a proposal," said Dick Rugge, USGA senior technical director. "We indicated that we were open-minded about these issues and would listen to all viewpoints. We have done so in the past few weeks. It became apparent that our original proposed maximum (385cc) would place undue effect on the golf club industry and market during the period just before the PGA Merchandise Show later this month. We believe that our revised proposal mitigates such an effect."

The Association continues to solicit feedback and comments from all interested parties regarding its clubhead size proposal until Feb. 19. The USGA will carefully consider all information presented before making a final ruling on the issue. Limits on head size will be effective immediately upon final adoption of the size standard.

Written comments or questions concerning this matter should be directed to Dick Rugge at USGA, P.O. Box 708, Far Hills, N.J. 07931; fax: 908-234-0138, or drugge@usga.org.

 
 

[TEPaul]

Tony:

Yours is a very good question. I think someone else posted a topic about this recently.

To speculate on your question of: "does it appear they will roll back the ball anytime soon", is interesting and can be looked at a few ways in the context of this recent "compromise move" of the USGA.

1/ They are compromising here and may just be feeling the ever increasing pressure from the manufacturers across the "Balls and Impliments" (B&I) spectrum and may not do anything benefical as to reining in the distance the ball will travel now or in the future! They may feel there isn't much they can do under these circumstances.

2/ Or this just might be a true "quid pro quo" move on their part! In exchange for this "give-away", if you will, they are positioning themselves to "get" something from the manufacturers!

I hope its' #2 because, personally I feel that the "implements" side of the B&I issue is just about maxed out as to distance increasing potential for the forseeable future (and I do mean forseeable). But the "balls" side of B&I has immense and dangerous distance increasing potential and that the technology of that is right on our doorstep!

So this might be something like we will give you this (implements) if you will consider agreeing to this (balls). At least I hope that's what's happening!

And I do know that the USGA is never inclined to "restrict" anything that is on the market or in the production pipeline! That doesn't mean that they can't or won't do something in the future but it's quite obvious that they have to give the manufacturers plenty of time to plan for it--otherwise the only people who would ever make out will be the lawyers!

[Paul Richards]

Tony and TEPaul:

Seems to me that the USGA will just cave in on every
issue.

Why bother?  

Why even have rules?

Just let the manufacturers do whatever they want!!

[Robert_Walker]

Does anyone know what the RandA have to say about these issues?
Does ALL of the so-called blame rest on the shoulders of the USGA.
When the USGA DID SOMETHING about the trampoline effect, did the RandA support them?
Should the RandA be the 1st line defenders of the technology roll backs that the USGA want to implement?
If the RandA had immediately come out in support of the USGA's volume limitation, would that have made a difference?

[Paul Richards]

Robert:

Just who is the watchdog of the game of golf?

It's seems that neither the USGA nor the R & A wants to
take responsibility to protect the game.

Sad for all of us and, especially, for the game of golf.

[Robert_Walker]

:)There are 2 "watchdogs of golf". The USGA, and the RandA.
The USGA has a test facility, and backs up its Balls and Implements decisions with science.
The RandA has no test facility, and does not trust the USGA's science. Therefore, it is awkward when the USGA takes the bull by the horns on important issues.  

[Tim_Weiman]

Robert Walker:

I agree there are two watchdogs in the game of golf: the R&A and the USGA.  Ideally, they should stand together.
However, at some point the USGA just might have to take a stand unilaterally.

Unfortunately, they appear to be using language that suggests the financial well being of equipment manufacturers shall determine the rules of the sport.  If they go down that road, they might as well close up shop altogether.

[TEPaul]

I hear you guys and theoretically and logical it might sound right what you're saying.

But I'm sure you all know or can sense the atmosphere out there and how the attitudes of these manufacturers has change recently. Basically they are about 1000 times more aggressive than they were ten years ago. And they are also about 1000 times less respectful of the USGA (or the R&A) than they were ten years ago.

You have to remember the USGA really has no enforcement power and they never have! The manufacturers and the public have just voluntarily followed them all these years. But will they still and will they in the future with this aggressive atmosphere.

What do you think would happen if they said today; "OK we're rolling the ball back 10-20% right now?" What do you think the manufacturers would do about that? How about the public?

I think they basically have three choices:

1. Try and hold the line as best they can in this new atmosphere, sort of the way they have been.

2. Try to negotiate a "quid pro quo" with the manufacturers as they may be doing as evidenced by this particular "compromise move" on this topic and get some agreement on the future of the ball. That may not work and the manufacturers may try to just go around or trample the B&I rules and try to win the hearts and minds of the golfing public for anything they want to manufacture. Would the public decide to voluntarily stick with the USGA's B&I rules long term? I think not! The USGA would gradually lose their relevance.

3. The USGA could just try to roll things back on their own, hopefully giving the manufacturers enough lead time to do it. If they did that a lot of people are going to come after them and a lot of people are going to try to just go around them as Callaway did. They will certainly have their supporters and they should to everything in their power at this point to bring all the entities of gold together from all over the world and say; help us save the future of the game by controlling this. The manufacturers will come after them legally and the USGA will be the defendant in a huge restraint of trade suit or a series of suits. Their defense will be they are just trying to protect the game and to do that they are just asking the public to follow their rules to protect the game and its architecture and that they can't force anybody to do anything. And they will claim that this does not constitute "restraint of trade" with the manufacturers.

If they get out there and explain this to the public--what they're there for and bring in David Boies to defend them, they will win in court and the game will be saved! It might not get that far though--they might have a negotiated settlement with some new rolled back rules or hold the line B&I rules.

But if you just think all they have to do is just suck it up and put out a press release saying, enough is enough and here are the new B&I rules, I think you should think again!

I wish it were that simple. Unfortunately it's not.

[Matt_Ward]

When you hear the words "settle" / "compromise" / "work it out" you have the langauge of lawyers. The USGA is more concerned about hanging onto the considerable $$$ it makes with the fat NBC TV contract. Going into court and fighting it out is not in the works and the likelihood is probably some sort of watered down product dealing with the ball and overall length of clubs.

The manufacturers always mouth the PC language of "collaboration" but that is an empty smoke screen for "on our terms." I'd like to hear from any manufacturer who believes in some sort of regulation -- the rest of the pablum you hear is nothing less than the same old tired song of "we know best" because we just want to make a fast $$$.

Clearly, the soft equipment market is making manufacturers nervous about what will happen. But, let's be clear the USGA has never really articulated a sound process that takes away the manufacturers argument that they are "oppressed" in this continuing saga. Until the USGA develops a sound and compelling communications plan between the towers of Far Hills, NJ and your average Joe "sixpack" the advantage of perception will rest with the manufacturers.

Nothing less from the USGA will do -- how the issues are comunicated will be the major way in which the public ultimately decides who is on their side after all. The USGA is really two holes down with three to play.

[TEPaul]

And what would that "sound and compelling communication plan" be?

[Tim_Weiman]

Matt Ward:

I agree with you that the USGA needs to start a communications program in defense of Joe Six Pack against the equipment manufacturers blatant encouragement of the golf technology arms race that accomplishes nothing but increasing the cost of playing the game.

My plan would be a combination of that and Tom Paul's option #3.

In sum, the USGA should:

1) Develop communication plan to highlight how pointless and costly the golf technology arms race is.

2) Announce intention to roll ball back 10-15%

3) Indicate they will give three years for everyone to make the appropriate adjustments.

4) Emphasize that the new ball rules will be strickly enforced at all USGA events while also encouraging the public to voluntarily follow the USGA lead for normal everyday golf.

I just don't believe the manufacturers would win in court.  The USGA needs to have more confidence and do more to stress the benefits reasonable regulations on technology will bring.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom & Tim,

For starters, it means being less concerned about the country club types and the blue bloods of the world and really talking to the people who do in fact play the game -- the masses.

The USGA thinks that collaboration means bringing people from XYZ country club from the east coast with XYZ country club from the west coast. HELLO!!! Anybody home???

Most people realize that any game must have rules. The USGA needs to enlist the support of people with credibility and celebrity to make their case. That used to be Arnold Palmer. Not now given the change of heart taken by AP.

How about enlisting Nicklaus and make a move towards Woods provided the brain trust at Nike doesn't abort it. Why not reach out to others who do love golf and have a strong standing with the public.

I also agree that a general phase-in approach is also good bcause it permits equipment companies not be blind sighted from legitimate expenses they have put out. Also, when the rules are phased in it would be no less in the same manner as the clean air and water regs were put forward by the Feds.

I also agree with John Solheim / Ping that the rules of physics may be all that is necessary as it related to clubhead size and shaft length. How the USGA came to a mx size of 385 cc needs to be explained?

The public doesn't understand the issues because the equipment company have skillfully framed the debate on their terms. The USGA comes off as the cranky grandfather who's always barking this and that about the dangers of just about everything.

A little comedy and laughter goes a long way. As much as many people thought the Titleist commercials were really a deviation from what their company is supposed to be about the average golfer can relate to the premise that the game is being taken away from us by people who have little, if any, connection to us.

I would urge the USGA to develop an RFP (request for proposal) to be sent to the best sports marketing / pr firms in the nation and get moving. There are plenty of bright minds that can combat the relentless effort put forward by the manufacturers. It's time the USGA bagged these snnnnoozzzee spots you get with their touchy feelie messages. They are a YYYYAAAAWWWWNNNN ...

The USGA is in a touch selling spot because telling people what they can't have is never an easy message to swallow. What does that tell you? It's time to "spin" the message in another direction. However, if takes legal action then it's time the USGA got off its soft behind and move aggressively ahead. I contribute my small amount of $$ to the USGA each year. Having them stock pile it is not helping the game and just about anyone with common sense knows that.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Paul:

I think the elements of a sound communications plan would be the following:

1) Golf is a sport.  The rules should be established by an independent body concerned about the game and people who play the game rather than lawyers, equipment suppliers or courts.

2) Golf needs to get back to its roots: a game the common man can afford to play.

3) The USGA should highlight the flat growth of golf during the 1990's despite being an economic boom time and having the benefit of the Tiger Woods effect.  The USGA should stress that one of the reasons for this is that the entire golf industry lost sensitivity to how expensive the game can be.

4) The economics of the length issue needs to be brought into focus.  The reality of the golf technology arms race needs to be highlighted.  The negative impact of technology on the cost of playing the game needs to be put front and center.  

5) Specifically, the communications plan should highlight how the basic elements of the cost of playing golf are increasing: the cost of building courses (and associated green fees) and the cost of equipment (balls and clubs).
 
6) The USGA intends to be fair and provide three years lead time before new distance regulations for the golf ball go into effect.

7) The USGA rules will be strickly enforced at the limited number of USGA events.  The USGA encourages the general public to voluntarily follow the same rules enforced in official competitions.

The USGA should stress that it is a non profit entity concerned only about promoting the game.

This is hardly a polished, well thought out communication plan. The USGA needs to begin by making a commitment to putting one together and bringing a little sanity to this issue.  A little more self confidence wouldn't hurt either.

[Tim_Weiman]

Matt Ward:

You've expressed things far better than I did.

[Tony Ristola]

For the USGA to have a communications plan they first need to identify what their convictions are. What is their mission?  Their purpose.

Taking on manufacturers with the golfing public's money IS their job if it the manufacturers want to challenge.  It is not only their job it is their duty to defend the game. Protect it.   It is a duty they should relish.  Their job No.1 is much like the role of any American administration...any president... to protect the country "against enemies foreign and domestic."  

It seems the USGA, like the Clinton administration doesn't want to take on the difficult but necessary tasks, preferring symbolism over substance, and knowing most people don't care and/or can be fooled.  How pathetic. They try to figure out what will make people happy, not what is best.  Words like "open-minded" (from the USGA press release) make me puke.  How about making the right decision based on hard facts, not verbal B.S. and feel good inclusiveness?

What we have with the USGA is not leadership, it's pandering...and we now know the costs of having morally bankrupt people (Clinton, Hillary, Gore, Begala, Ickes, Berger...etc., etc.) pandering to the public (not saying the USGA is morally bankrupt).  Lack of leadership is like being in a rudderless boat... and where is the USGA's rudderless boat leading the game?  No-where fast.

[TEPaul]

Those are some good ideas for a communication plan for the USGA. We had an enormous bunch of topics on here about all this about a year or more ago during that whole Callaway/Palmer/ERC2 mess, and much was discussed about how the USGA has just got to get out there and explain to the golfing public what they are all about--what they are there for and that a good PR campaign is overdue.

But again, you all have to remember that they are a non-profit organization that although they set the rules and always have they do rely on voluntary compliance completely and always have. There is no other way for them! All this means is they have no enforcement power or ability at all except in their own thirteen tournaments.

And Tim:

What they say in their "communication plan" about the manufacturers needs to be said carefully! It would be better to say nothing at all about the manufacturers and if you will notice they never really have.

If there's a law suit against the USGA in the B&I context they will only be the defendent. There is no reason for them to sue a manufacturer nor would they ever. Their unusual amount of money in the last few years, I believe, is a war chest only if the manufacturers come after them. And criticizing the manufacturers in any way would likely trigger such a suit on the grounds of "restraint of trade".

So in effect they can't tell the public in any way that buying any equipment is bad or bad for the game they can only say that following their rules is good for the game.

I know you guys are going to find this almost impossible to believe but in this aggressive and litigous business world they find themselves in they cannot even be seen to openly agree to collaborate with the R&A! That could and likely would be seen as monopolistic and the manufacturers could come after both of them on that alone! They can unify again on B&I, particularly the COR limit but they will have to appear to arrive at unity each in their own way!

It's pretty sickening really but it's true.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Paul:

In the unlikey event the USGA takes action, I'm sure their attorneys will sanitize any communications plan.  My off the cuff remarks were simply meant is part of discussion that might contribute in some small way towards giving them more courage.

Anyway, if you sense I believe the manufacturers have gotten a free ride so far in shaping the debate about what is best for Joe Sixpack, then I made myself clear.

I may not have liked James Carville, but I respected his ability to play broken record with sound bites.

We should repeat that the "golf technology arms race adds nothing but unnecessary costs to the game" every chance we get.

[Tony Ristola]

TEPaul:  Non-profit has nothing to do with leadership.

You either play by the rules or not.  Every tournament, not just USGA run events follow the Rules of Golf.  I cannot recall any tournament as an amateur or profesional in 25 years of golf which scrubbed rules (winter rules an exception), nor can I recall a rules decision in tournament play being set arbitrarily...they followed the rules, even if it was hurtful to the competitor in question.

Tim:  Clinton and Clowns had convictions, you're right, and played the broken recordwhatever it was...every day of every week... no matter how perverse it was, no matter how it flew in the face of common sense. They did prove that you can wage war, even a perverse war if you are focused (they did against Gingrich, Starr, Jones, House Travel Office, Jennifer Flowers, Kathlen Wiley, etc.), that getting your message out, educating the public about your principles, no matter how twisted (with their liberal friends in the press) can move many minds.

The USGA has no foes, the press is neither for or against them, and would have public support if they only set some guidelines and followed through.  

[TEPaul]

Tim:

I couldn't agree with you more that the manufacturers have gotten a free ride recently in shaping the debate about what's good for Joe Sixpack or the American golfer! You put this topic very well by saying "shaping the debate"!, because that's exactly what the manufacturers have done, particularly in the last four years since Buz Taylor made that remark (as he was being induced as President) about how the USGA was going to do something about this and they didn't care how many lawyers came after them (or something to that effect).

Quite obviously both Buz and the USGA completely misread the attitude and the expected (or hoped for) response from the manufacturers! To their obvious surprise the manufacturers came out swinging in every way after that remark. And quite obviously the USGA has been in their "paper Tiger" mode ever since!

Immediately following that brouhaha, the USGA should have come out with a well crafted "communications plan" the likes of which many of you have touched on here!

In my opinion, their approach to the public (even Joe Sixpack) should NOT have been something like; "We control and administer the rules of golf, we have for one hundred years and we will tell you what you can play with and what you can't".

It should have been something to the public like this; "With your support and compliance we have been able to administer the rules of the game for one hundred years and we feel that you feel the game has prospered and been preserved well to this point because of your compliance and support for the way we have administered the rules of the game."  

They should then have gone on to explain how the game is threaten now by a technology explosion and apparent arms race for increased distance and basically what that could mean to the playing fields of the game. They should also have made it clearer to the public that the rules of golf are in two basic categories--the playing rules and the B&I rules! Very few people understand that and actually it's an important distinction to be aware of. It really was important too that they bring in the context of architecture at that point. They didn't do that that I'm aware of and if they did it was extremely limited and peripheral.

What they did is offer up some vague analogies of how failure to play within one set of rules or to abide by them and the dangers of unleashed technology had made other sports decline in popularity--and the one I heard was an analogy to bowling, of all things!!

That is or was just not definitive enough to what was going on or what could happen in the future. I'm sure that the USGA and the manufacturers, Tours, foundations, whatever are interested in the "popularity" of the game but I don't really know how interested I am or you are or Joe Sixpack is! But we are interested in our golf clubs and golf balls and certainly our golf courses!

They could have offered the public information on what had happened with the technology but the fact is they really weren't completely sure what had happened. Despite an  expensive and sophisitcated test facility their stats were not really representative of what was happening or could happen and to date they still seem slightly unaware of that or unwilling to completely admit it.

This really all boiled down eventually to the single issue of what they perceived to be a COR related problem. It was that but much more than that! The USGA actually did not discover the COR problem, they were made aware of it by a manufacturer!

Without going into speculation of all the details that were causing the distance explosion, and that noone could really agree what was causing it in detail, the fact remains that although they might not agree what caused the problem, they could have agreed how to solve it.

And this is where and when the USGA did not communicate particularly well with the manufacturers and certainly they did not communicate well with the public.

At some point if the manufacturers smell blood and feel that the USGA has no real solid support from the public they will likely begin to stop communicating with the USGA and just try to take B&I matters into their own hands in an unregulated B&I world, or at the very least, regulated by another entity or likely other entities! We could be getting near that point.

So the USGA really does need to get out there with a really good and saleable message if they want to get the public back or really on their side. And frankly, enough time has gone by now (the last four years) where their message might need a slightly different "tone" than even four years ago!

For this I would offer one of the most extraordinary public messages I ever saw. It was John Lindsay, the Mayor of NYC who was running for reelection. He was considered arrogant, an elitist, and the average New Yorker was really down on him for appearing to be sort of a " lofty aristocratic appearing know it all". Lindsay was a total goner in the polls and the election was real near and along came a huge snow storm and shut down the city and the snow crews did a credible job but couldn't handle the storm very well. Well now, in that already unpopular atmosphere that Lindsay found himself in, the city blamed the whole thing on him and he was even more of a goner!

But on the advice of a political operative, who I'm still in awe of, Lindsay got on all the airwaves and TV stations and took full responibilty for the snow storm and the aftermath. He said that the storm and whatever failures there had been to clean it up properly were all his fault. Basically he said the storm and everything else NYC was pissed at he was persoanlly responsible for--that it was all his fault!

Do you think NYC even noticed the ludicrousness of Lindsay taking responsibility for an actual snow storm? Not at all, and he was reelected with plenty of breathing room votes to spare.

The USGA's policy now and for the future does not need to be the message but they do need a message and a communication plan and very good ones and they need them very soon.

[TEPaul]

Tony:

You're right about that--"non-profit" doesn't really have much to do with leadership, at least in the context I mentioned it in some of my posts here. Although in a indirect way it does.

I think a lot about these issues, have for a long time now, and hopefully plan to do something about it although the chances of success would seem very small and limited.

Sometimes I do get confused on the cross-currents of all the issues confronting the USGA/R&A and the "non-profit" issue does have a great deal to do with the way the USGA/R&A  looks at themselves and what they can and cannot do in certain areas.

I would really like to see them take a stronger stand in handicapping, particularly their own GHIN system but they cannot see doing that because of their ongoing fear of "anti-trust" and "monopoly" issues! This constant fear of "anti-trust", even very much concerns them with issues involving B&I. What I said on an earlier post about their fears and concerns about collaborating and unifying with the R&A on B&I issues is very real to them--and it's very real to the R&A. And it's very real to them because the manufacturers in their new aggressive stance are actually reminding them that they are being watched like a hawk in this particular area!

But my point about "non-profit" deals mostly with "anti-trust" issues and concerns. My point being that "anit-trust" and "monopoly" is based primarily on the concept of "predatory business practices" and my message to them is that they need not be so concerned about "predatory business practices" because they are not even remotely in the business of "business" because they are simply a "non-profit" organization in the business of doing something only for the good of the game and the good of golfers!

In that context the anti-trust lawyers I've spoken to say I'm right about that although it might not be totally clear. But at the very least it appears that if tested in court their chances of winning on this point would be extremely good. They might have to do a bit of technical restructuring in certain areas (like the GHN system) to get out of harm's way on this "anti-trust" issue. And for the rest of it they only need to present the reality of themelves properly in court!

So I shouldn't have used "non-profit" in this context! What I should have said is they have no enforcement ability with the rules (except their own 13 tournaments) because they are completely based in everything they do on VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE!  

It's very important to keep that in mind when one talks about leadership and it's responsibilities. They can only be effective insofar as they can make what they do make sense to us! Without us and our voluntary compliance they will not be very relevant and if golf and golfers go too far down the road of failure to comply with the USGA, the organization will be essential out of the equation.

So you can talk about their leadership responsibility and how they should present it but both you and they need to be careful how you present it--that's what I'm trying to say here!

Some people--a lot of people actually, just don't really understand what the USGA is and more importantly what they are not--but I agree with you and all the other contributors that it is the USGA's responsibility to get out there and explain it to them and to all of us!

[Tony Ristola]

TEPaul:

The USGA and R&A have had a great deal of compliance (over 100 years) because everyone wants rules to define the limitations of proper play, just like society in general.  They are our legislative and judicial branch all in one, and this authority has never been challenged say by a new group with new rules, like a Golf Club Atlas Rules of Golf.  Another is, the manufacturers wouldn't accept any new legislative or judicial body.  They'd ignore it.  So, the USGA and R&A are it.  They are our sole defenders, solely responsible for defending the game.

You wrote: "It's very important to keep that in mind when one talks about leadership and it's responsibilities. They can only be effective insofar as they can make what they do make sense to us!  Without us and our voluntary compliance they will not be very relevant and if golf and golfers go too far down the road of failure to comply with the USGA, the organization will be essential out of the equation."

Well, rolling back the ball is common sense, and all decisions need be made in that context to have any gravity, and for them to maintain credibility.  That is not the problem.  The problem is, and please correct me if I am wrong, they have not taken a stand for reasons of litigation, because it might be difficult, might cost a lot of money.  Either that or they believe the game has not transformed during the past 15 years, which would indicate a total lack of understanding of modern golf.  They are in effect spineless or ignorant.  

They USGA/R&A are not leading and they certainly are not explaining, and the Torrey Pines latest redo (for US Open consumption it seems now...Bethpage Black West) illustrates (at least to me, perhaps it is a stretch) the USGA is standing around with their hands in their pockets not even considering the ball issue...if they were, don't you think they would have tipped off their Open Dr. to tone things down on the length front?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Robert Walker,

I agree with you completely.

Let me expand upon your statements by saying that if the
R & A had agreed with the USGA, the manufacturers may have seen a unified front, and taken a different posture, rather than spotting a devisive opening upon which they could springboard with respect to the development of additional equipment which we perceive to be counter to the best interests of the game.

I think the R & A's failure to support the USGA position did more harm to the cause, than any manufacturer's to date.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Robert Walker,

Sorry, I hit the post button before I had intended to.

Ask yourselves, if a child commits a transgression, and one parent admonishes them, but the other parent says it's okay,
will that devisiveness be used in the future by the child to get their way, and will it cause friction in the relationship between the two parents ?

I view the R & A's failure to endorse the USGA postion very harmful to the effort to control the distance problem, and a good deal of the blame should be directed at the R & A.

[Tony Ristola]

Patrick:  Well said, excellent analogy.  You would think on a matter of such importance they would have come out unified.  It speaks volumes about the governing bodies.

[Matt_Ward]

Leaders have followers. The power of the bully pulpit is to PERSUADE. How is the USGA doing that???

Pat, is quite correct -- the split between the USGA and R&A only caused more of an opening for the manufacturers to exploit to their considerable advantage.

I just have to wonder -- does the USGA really understand how to build a collaborative framework built on long term consensus so that the equipment issue can be finally put to rest???

Issuing edicts from Far Hills like the Vatican in Rome is just not going to cut it. That leadership style (should one call it that?) will easily be manipulated for prime advantage by the big players like Titleist, Callaway, Nike, et al.

The first step in understanding what you need to do is realizing what you don't know. The USGA has no real communications plan and until such an admission comes from the top the equipment dilemma will only grow and grow.

It's truly sad because this issue should never have been allowed to fester as long as it has.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()