[Jon Wiggett]

As for calling for the Ford Capri to comeback... Wow! Petition the white house for that one!

Sid,

I never called for the Ford Capri to comeback so you have obviously misunderstood my point The point I was making is many would have us believe that existing products are removed from the shelf as there is a lack of demand. This is plainly not true and the case of the Capri is a good example.

Jon

[A.G._Crockett]

Go to court. The pressure should come from us. I for one will not buy any equipment EVER from any company that opposes a role back in court. If I have to play a hickory shaft and a Spalding Dot for the rest of my life on principal, that works for me.

Ian

What do you play with now, and if it isn't hickory shafted clubs and Spalding Dot golf balls, why not ? Don't mean to sound cheeky, but if you mean that pressure should come from the consumer then why wait for any court case.

Niall

I'm with Ian. I will not play any ball from a company that opposes a ball roll back in court. And it doesn't matter what other equipment I use, because, this is a ball issue. The only other thing that matters is that I won't play Ping irons, because what they did before in court on the groove rule.

This is, of course, empty sanctimony.  For reasons discussed here a million times, there won't be a "roll back" because there isn't anything to roll back TO.  There will be bifurcation or there will be no change on the ball, period.

However, I think a better way of looking at the anchoring rule is that it may be part of a very measured and long range move by the USGA to go to a bifurcated ball rule, which would seem to be the only solution.  First were grooves, which ARE bifurcated and will be for at least another decade.  I think it is very possible that the anchoring rule will end up being permanently bifurcated in some way or another.  Once the golf world has gotten used to the idea, a bifurcated rule for the golf ball is a much smaller step.

But since we are making empty promises, I'll take my vows.  Not only will I continue to play ONLY Ping clubs (since Ping has forced the USGA to be more diligent in the use of their authority AND the fact that Ping was right), but I will vow here and now to ONLY use the golf ball of any manufacturer(s) to take the USGA to court when your mythical roll back is contested.  I also promise to ride my unicorn to the golf course, and tilt at a few windmills on the way.

[Niall C]

I've been playing with the same "set" of clubs for pretty well the last decade excepting a couple of changes here and there. None of them were new when I bought them and further more I tend to use lake balls a lot (God bless American golf course architecture). Maybe I'm doing my bit for the roll back programme without even knowing it !

Niall

[Richard Choi]

If USGA used grooves and putters to "test out the rollbacks" for other more significant changes, they are idiots as all that has proved is that equipment changes do not make ANY difference.

The problem with club changes like grooves is that they thought it would result in significant difference in scoring, but the effect has been nil to negligible. The groove changes had absolute no impact whatsoever. You won't see any statistical difference after the belly putter is banned either. All this has proved to others is that equipment rollbacks are waste of money and time.

If they really want to preserve the game, they should have used the effort to rollback the ball distance, because that is the only thing that really matters. But for some reason, they went the other route and they won't have enough momentum after these debacles to make any changes that will have any real impact.

Just idiotic...

[William_G]

Of course, it's just like everything else in America ... we can't do anything to address any of our problems, because some big company might make less than they do now.

next to impossible, all about the money 

[A.G._Crockett]

If USGA used grooves and putters to "test out the rollbacks" for other more significant changes, they are idiots as all that has proved is that equipment changes do not make ANY difference.

The problem with club changes like grooves is that they thought it would result in significant difference in scoring, but the effect has been nil to negligible. The groove changes had absolute no impact whatsoever. You won't see any statistical difference after the belly putter is banned either. All this has proved to others is that equipment rollbacks are waste of money and time.

If they really want to preserve the game, they should have used the effort to rollback the ball distance, because that is the only thing that really matters. But for some reason, they went the other route and they won't have enough momentum after these debacles to make any changes that will have any real impact.

Just idiotic...

Not to test roll backs.  To ease toward bifurcation.  And maybe not idiotic at all.

[Richard Choi]

Not to test roll backs.  To ease toward bifurcation.  And maybe not idiotic at all.

Why is birfurcating the rule that results in absolutely nothing, but have significant financial impact for players a good thing? If that is what they wanted to test, why didn't they choose something that nobody cares about like grounding the club in sand after a shot?

[A.G._Crockett]

Not to test roll backs.  To ease toward bifurcation.  And maybe not idiotic at all.

Why is birfurcating the rule that results in absolutely nothing, but have significant financial impact for players a good thing? If that is what they wanted to test, why didn't they choose something that nobody cares about like grounding the club in sand after a shot?
[/quote]

Richard,
I never said it was a good thing (or a bad thing, for that matter).  I suggested that getting the world of golf used to bifurcation gradually might be a strategy of the USGA, and that the ball could be the end game of that strategy.  IF that is the strategy, then what better than a "rule that results in absolutely nothing" to give everyone a secure feeling about different rules for the pros vs. my Saturday morning points game?

And who says nobody cares about grounding a club in the sand after a shot?  The rule only applies if you leave the shot in the bunker and have another bunker shot coming, in which case the rule is very consistent by preventing you from testing the surface.  In any event, that is not an equipment rule, which is the whole point about bifurcating the ball.

[Nigel Islam]

The whole concept is based on seeing how much heat they get. I think the USGA felt confident it could handle the grooves in a court of law, and feels good about anchoring too. They do not feel as confident about changing the ball allowances. Its like tv pushing the limits of the censors. They did not go right from Ozzie and Harriet in the same bed to what they show today. They did it a little at a time. I agree though the grooves and anchoring rules have not, and will not change scoring respectively.

[Nigel Islam]

Of course a roll back in the ball won't change scoring either. It will open up more of the classic venues if they do it right.

[Richard Choi]

The problem with "seeing how much heat" theory is that now they have created a precedent where a proposed equipment change did not lead to any of the "benefits" that USGA stated as the goal for making the change.

Now, the manufacturers will be free to plea to the courts that USGA is implementing changes that will result in absolutely no impact to the game while causing undue hardship (in millions in lost golf ball sales) for the manufacturers. I would think based on the groove change precedent, most judges will be very open to that argument.

You should always lead with your best shot.

[A.G._Crockett]

The problem with "seeing how much heat" theory is that now they have created a precedent where a proposed equipment change did not lead to any of the "benefits" that USGA stated as the goal for making the change.

Now, the manufacturers will be free to plea to the courts that USGA is implementing changes that will result in absolutely no impact to the game while causing undue hardship (in millions in lost golf ball sales) for the manufacturers. I would think based on the groove change precedent, most judges will be very open to that argument.

You should always lead with your best shot.

Manufacturers won't be able to claim lost sales because it hasn't happened and won't.  They have sold MORE clubs due to the groove rule, not less.  They would sell MORE balls with bifurcation/tournament ball rules, not less.

If the ball were to be bifurcated (which, by the way, I oppose) many golfers would buy at least some of both balls.  There is no reason to believe that ANY golfer would buy fewer golf balls.

On the other hand, the fantasy "roll back" that is so popular on this site (and which I also oppose and also consider impractical if not impossible) might very well cost the manufacturers sales.  A ball that flies shorter distances makes the game harder and might well lead to fewer rounds played and lower sales.  This is on top of the fact that the manufacturers would have to completely retool their production processes, something that would NOT be true of bifurcation/tournament ball rules.

[Dave McCollum]

I agree with A.G.’s arguments although I’m uncertain the USGA and R&A are clever enough to maneuver this as path to bifurcation regarding the tournament ball.  His other points are solid: amateurs buy whatever ball they want; tournaments, clubs, tours, or Augusta can choose the tournament ball as a rule of competition.  The ball manufacturer won’t have to retool to make the tournament ball because there will be no market demand for it.  Pros don’t buy balls.  Every other pro sport has an official ball.  Let all the ball companies fund a plant in China to make it (from the dough they save in endorsements?).   If clubs and amateurs want to “play what the pros play,” fine, sell them some balls.  Might actually sell more balls.  The only golfers really hurt are the pros raking in huge endorsement money for playing the latest, greatest, hot ball.  The endorsements will just shift to equipment:  if xyz pro can hit this tournament dud so far with this nuclear club, imagine what you can do with our latest supercharged recreational ball?  Problem solved.  Obviously, I don’t give a hoot about bifurcation or ballfurcation.  The pros play a different game.  Don’t change the courses, change the ball.  Make it bigger, spin more, or whatever they need to do to keep our courses relevant for a few pros.  Let everyone else have fun.

[Tom_Doak]

Every other pro sport has an official ball.  Let all the ball companies fund a plant in China to make it (from the dough they save in endorsements?).   If clubs and amateurs want to “play what the pros play,” fine, sell them some balls.  Might actually sell more balls.  The only golfers really hurt are the pros raking in huge endorsement money for playing the latest, greatest, hot ball.  The endorsements will just shift to equipment:  if xyz pro can hit this tournament dud so far with this nuclear club, imagine what you can do with our latest supercharged recreational ball?  Problem solved.  Obviously, I don’t give a hoot about bifurcation or ballfurcation.  The pros play a different game.  Don’t change the courses, change the ball.  Make it bigger, spin more, or whatever they need to do to keep our courses relevant for a few pros.  Let everyone else have fun.

Dave:

Agree. 

I have pointed it out many times before in this debate, but there are a lot of new faces here who can't remember back to the 1970's, so I'll say it again ... they've changed the ball before, quietly and effectively, in my lifetime.  Until the mid-1970's, the 1.62-in "small ball" was the law of the land everywhere outside the USA.  It went 20-30 yards farther off the tee than the 1.68-in ball of the same era.  But the pros didn't like having to swtich balls when they played overseas ... so the R & A changed the ball spec JUST FOR COMPETITORS IN THE OPEN AND AMATEUR CHAMPIONSHIPS, to the US standard 1.68-in ball.

Nobody screamed bloody murder about bifurcation.  The manufacturers didn't care, since they were making both balls already [and if that's bifurcation, it's been around since the 1920's].

The genius of the move was that by making the small ball illegal for the Amateur instead of just the Open, they sowed the seeds of change.  Anybody who wanted to play in the Amateur championship needed to switch ... and those players started clamoring for the ball spec to change further down the chain of important events, so they wouldn't be at a disadvantage.  By the mid-1980's, many club players still played the small ball, but it was gone at the elite level.  I don't know when it was discontinued altogether, but it had been pretty much abandoned by then anyway.

The only difference between then and now was that the Tour players SUPPORTED the change because they didn't want to adjust back and forth between two balls.  Now, of course, the Tour players do NOT support the change publicly, because they are being paid a lot of money by the manufacturers to endorse certain balls that sell like gangbusters to the public, and they're afraid their endorsement money might be curtailed if that ball is made illegal for tournament play.

None of this has anything to do with overall golf ball sales -- we will all continue to lose balls at our normal clip.    The argument is all about market share and protecting the market leader.

Don't change the courses, change the ball.

[JMEvensky]

Wasn't it Nicklaus who proposed just having a barrel of the same golf balls on the 1st tee?

[A.G._Crockett]

I agree with A.G.’s arguments although I’m uncertain the USGA and R&A are clever enough to maneuver this as path to bifurcation regarding the tournament ball.  His other points are solid: amateurs buy whatever ball they want; tournaments, clubs, tours, or Augusta can choose the tournament ball as a rule of competition.  The ball manufacturer won’t have to retool to make the tournament ball because there will be no market demand for it.  Pros don’t buy balls.  Every other pro sport has an official ball.  Let all the ball companies fund a plant in China to make it (from the dough they save in endorsements?).   If clubs and amateurs want to “play what the pros play,” fine, sell them some balls.  Might actually sell more balls.  The only golfers really hurt are the pros raking in huge endorsement money for playing the latest, greatest, hot ball.  The endorsements will just shift to equipment:  if xyz pro can hit this tournament dud so far with this nuclear club, imagine what you can do with our latest supercharged recreational ball?  Problem solved.  Obviously, I don’t give a hoot about bifurcation or ballfurcation.  The pros play a different game.  Don’t change the courses, change the ball.  Make it bigger, spin more, or whatever they need to do to keep our courses relevant for a few pros.  Let everyone else have fun.

Dave,
The reason I think that the USGA/R&A MAY have gotten more clever is because they have gotten much, much more cautious after the Ping lawsuit fiasco.  The moral of that story (in addition to not arguing engineering with engineers!) is to go slow and perform due diligence before taking action.  I think the USGA also understands that while they are and have been THE governing body of golf in the US, there is absolutely NO guarantee that they always will be such.  And so they move slowly...

One of two things is true about distance in golf, IMO.  Either it is now essentially capped, in which case there won't be bifurcation of the ball, which I think the USGA would much prefer, all other things equal.  Or, alternatively, thre are still distance gains out there, in which case the only answer is to bifurcate the ball.  In that event, the measured approach taken in the groove rule and now anchoring may have paved the way.

If I had one wish for this board, it would be that I never had to read the words "roll back" again.  It is inaccurate history, a silly and shortsighted philosopy, and horrendous business/economics.  Other than that, it's a terrific idea!

[Doug Siebert]

Wasn't it Nicklaus who proposed just having a barrel of the same golf balls on the 1st tee?

He would say that, since he played the worst ball on tour for most of his career

[Nigel Islam]

Don't change the courses, change the ball.

AMEN!

[Richard Choi]

AG, you can't have it both ways. Either manufacturers are going to lose sale and will sue, or manufacturers won't care and won't bother.

If USGA is not worried about manufacturers suing, why do you even bother with groove changes that resulted in absolutely nothing? The only equipment change worth doing is the ball limitation. I don't understand why you want to jeopardize that by spending time on something that has no effect on the game but makes your legal position more tenuous. That is just dumb.

[Tom_Doak]

Don't change the courses, change the ball.

AMEN!

Nigel:

I stole that line from Dave McCollum, who posted just above me.  And I think I've heard it before that.  I get too much credit for everything.

[Anthony Butler]

Two things you can count on. There will no bifurcation and no  'barrel of balls' on the first tee at professional golf tournaments. Marketing and sponsorship for golf equipment only work when the paying public can, to all extensive purposes, buy the same equipment as used by the pros.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()