"Frank" Talk from Thomas

[Jim Sweeney]

TEP, Tom Doak, Jim Kennedy, et al:

Thank you for an enlightening discussion about I&B matters- it is the best one I have encountered on this site. I hope Frank is right in his assertion that we've reached practical limits on distance under the rules as they are currently written. What I mourn more than distance increases is the lost art of ball manipulation caused by big headed drivers and perimeter weighted irons. Nick Price has made this point well and repeatedly. However, as time passes, assuming no new, large jumps in distance, and as the return to strategic design continues, these skills will find their way back into the game and players will demand equipment which permits them to manipulate the ball.

I recall that two major manufacturers- Callaway and Taylor Made, have stated that they will not produce non-conforming clubs in the future. I have not heard a similar statement by Titleist, though I thought Uhlien's statements in Golf World a few months ago were helpful. As TEP states so well, and Thomas's comments reinforce, compliance with I&B rules is voluntary.

Unfortunately that fact does not insulate the USGA from lawsuits. These actions are never about whether or not the USGA can make its own rules, but rather whether those rules have had the effect of damaging a firm's ability to do business in the golf market. They are anti-trust cases. And although the USGA has never lost such a suit (two have been settled, and I would argue that the USGA fared as well as the other parties) they are incredibly expensive just to get to the summary judgement stage- well over a million dollars in some cases. That doesn't sound like much for an organization that is worth 150mm, but that's a mil that could be spent on developmental courses, or turfgrass research, or improving the USGA's I&B testing abilities, or whatever else that USGA does for the good of the game.

Please accept that the manufacturers can and should act as consultants and advisors on B&I- that's an ongoing feature of the I&B program. It is on of Dick Rugge's primary responsibilities. But they can never be part of final decision making, for obvious conflict of interest and USGA fiduciary responsibility reasons.

I would hope that the other major organizations- the Tour, the LPGA Tour, the PGA of America, the IAGA, the GCSAA, the AAGCA, etc. would publically support the USGA's I&B role, even to the extent of offering financial backing against the possibility of lawsuits. Why would they do so? Out of recignition of the need for a strong, independent body dedicated to the health of the game, which comes from its challenge and its traditions.

[Matt_Ward]

jesplusone:

You raise a number of salient points, but keep in mind that the USGA should encourage a "collaborative" framework on the subject of equipment. The desire to browbeat people really doesn't work.

When you have bomb blasts coming from previous Executive Committee members all that encourages is retaliation of the sort you now see with the tongue'n cheek commercials put forward by Titleist.

I'm not suggesting that a collaboration implies or even means a capitulation on a matter that the USGA must decide.

But many times people will not argue with an outcome if they "trust" that the process that put those final outcomes into motion is based on a willing spirit to dialogue that is grounded on having an open mind to different viewpoints. The USGA must realize that equipment companies are valuable players in the overall health of the game -- issuing dicta from Far Hills like the Pope at the Vatican isn't going to cut it.

Look, there's no doubt as Frank Thomas indicated many equipment companies are caught between their billfold and their heart. Many of these same companies have also mushroomed into far larger entities with corporate leaders who are only interested in botton line realities.

The USGA enters the 21st century with a large $$ chest. Clearly, a protocol needs to be established that allows a meaningful process to come forward. However, I'm not so naive to believe that you may have certain equipment companies who will persue their own agenda no matter how welcome the process may be. If that should happen then the USGA must decide if going all the way through the legal system makes sense. I don't believe matters need go that far but that all depends upon the attitude and willingness of the key players.

[TEPaul]

jesplusone;

Very good and level-headed post.

Matt;

I think most understand that cooperation and collaboration are needed between the regulators of B&I rules and regs and the manufacturers. That's sort of a given. How to actually go about achieving that is not, however.

I still like my idea about that independent committee (from the PING/PGA Tour lawsuit) being used as a "mediator", "honest broker", whatever, to try to bring all the entities of golf together for a sit-down to talk about how B&I will affect the game in 2 years, 10 years, 50 years, 100 years.

That committee still is populated by some pretty interesting and impressive "disinterested" parties. And I think making George Bush Sr the head of it would be a wonderful stroke!

But one does need to understand how the B&I world works and has always worked with the regulators in juxtaposition to the manufacturers. Essentially the regulators are probably always basically playing catch-up to technological advances in B&I in the sense of constantly analyzing R&D effects of manufacturing and products that they probably aren't particular aware of the distance effects of and sadly even AFTER it gets on the market. And then considering that they always do have do all this stuff on their own before ruling on its conformance anyway.

The first awareness of the effects of "spring-like" effect and its influence on COR enhancing distance with the new faces of drivers is certainly such an example.

Oddly, there's a man at my golf club who used to be the COO for Wilson. A couple of years ago he told me some years ago when he was there Wilson's R&D came upon a real anomoly in their distance tests with a new metal driver face they were testing. It really surprised them and they told the USGA about the anomoly. He said the USGA certainly couldn't have been aware of the problem or even the potential of it. I'm just taking this guy's word for it but apparently this was the first time the USGA became aware of actual "spring-like" effect of driver faces which had distance enhancing effect on the golf ball compared to the drivers of that time most of which were the old persimmon and composite wood faces.

So now obviously the USGA was going to have to analyze the whole phenomenon by creating a protocol and test and eventually make some kind of ruling on the effects of this phenomenon or even if there was one.

I have no idea how long that took the USGA to do--maybe a few years and as we know by that time there were probably a good number of metal drivers out there in the hands of golfers that had "spring-like" effect and the ability to enhance distance on balls for the first time in a driver in a COR context before the USGA could even get around to testing and figuring out exactly what to do about it.

We know what the USGA tried to do. Buzz Taylor made that fateful statement and the manufacturers really reacted and the USGA backed Taylor off and backed off on the COR issue and also on Frank Thomas's recommendation to limit COR right at the same number as the old persimmons which was around .78 that was actually no "spring-like" effect.

Did they listen to him? Apparently they didn't since with all those potentially non-conforming drivers out there obviously the USGA lawyers and members of the Board could see a series of restraint of trade suits coming at them. But I do remember him saying where they should limit COR back then.

And frankly, in those days the USGA didn't have enough money to defend themselves. So they set COR at around .83 which was about the max limit then of what was out there and probably in the pipeline. Basically the USGA didn't take Frank Thomas's advice. But the reasons they didn't is certainly clear now.

The next thing was the inception of the combined "new age" ball. Did Frank see that coming? Apparently so but maybe not before some of them were out there--and the irony was they conformed to the ODS standard that Frank had set up back in the 1970s anyway. The only thing was good players who could swing hard never used the balls that were nearer the ODS limit. But now those good players were beginning to.

It sounds like Frank may have recommended that the USGA restrict that too somehow but apparently they weren't that interested probably for the same basic reason as the COR thing--ie massive manufacturer lawsuits on restraint of trade.

Frank even said he set up the new "optimization" testing procedures to test all this stuff. It was to be a controlled test in an indoor confined atmosphere, all computerized to test everything about balls and impliments symbiosis. When the USGA ran that new "optimization" test procedure by the manufacturers for their input the manufacturers said "boo" and the "optimization" testing procedure was history and the USGA rolled out Iron Byron again.

So it sure is easy to see how things happen technologically and the USGA has to try to find some way of playing catch-up with their testing, analyzing and rulings. And added to that sad but probably inevitable state of affairs the legal world is always there to potentially intimidate.

Frank's really a great guy and I couldn't have been more impressed by how he related a lot of this history without the faintest trace of blame-slinging or animosity toward anyone, not even Karsten Solheim who had sued him personally for potentially $300 million dollars. That would be a little bit of an eye-opener to me!

And then he was replaced and a new tech director came in.

I agree with Matt that somehow all the entities of golf have just got to sit down and work out something reasonable even if regulated technology may be near the edge of the envelop. I think the new ODS limits that are about to come out may reflect something more realistic to what's actually happening today like 307 yds at the combined ODS limitation instead of the old 290 something with the ODS Frank Thomas set up. I guess they think most of that reflects the new age ball that has max distance somewhere ahead of what the balls they used to use had.

Despite no apparent animus towards anyone really Frank Thomas did say things have gotten out of control distance-wise in his opinion. What if the USGA had taken his advice and his recommendations on these things in the last 12-13 years or so? Would the manufacturers have come after the USGA and broken them in restraint of trade suits or even broken them trying to defend themselves? We'll never know.

But then enter the likes of Eric Gleacher who raised the USGA a massive war chest if that's what they needed it for. Personally, I think that's great. Now they sure are more prepared to defend the decisions they make on B&I rules and regs.

Maybe now is the time to try to get everyone together with something like that "honest broker" committee and Bush Sr as the chairman and try to get everyone to agree to take things back to pre "spring-like" effect drivers and pre-combined new age balls. And to somehow write some rules and regs and create an atmosphere where things don't get out of control again before the USGA has a chance to figure out what's going on.

jesplusone said;

"I hope Frank is right in his assertion that we've reached practical limits on distance under the rules as they are currently written."

He didn't exactly say we've reached them but he did say he thinks technologically we are very near reaching them. If nothing else is done I sure do too! And I sure do hope that everyone continues to stay in compliance with our USGA regulators.

[Willie_Dow]

A thought, from guy who has hit too many shots recently with this wonderful analyst of golf, his concern for the future of where we are and where we are going with this game, I think Frank is very much on track,