[Patrick_Mucci]

Jslonis,

The problem with bifurcation is that the amateur will always want to play with the equipment the PGA Tour guys play, hence a roll-back for Non-PGA Tour players would result in tremendous pressure to yield in that area.  

I understand his corporate responsibilities come first, but he's no steward of the game

Yes, the amateurs have wanted to play the same equipment as the pros, but would they still want to play the same stuff if that meant a shorter ball, shorter, smaller driver, no anchoring, etc?

I'm not so sure anymore.

I didn't think that King was advocating a rollback for the PGA Tour Pros.
I thought he was stating that they're not going to change anything for the PGA Tour Pros, but, if the USGA wanted to institute a rollback for amateurs, let them go ahead and do it, since he advocates ignoring it for the PGA Tour Pros.

Did I read it incorrectly ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jerry, Jamie, et., al.,

I think bifurcation would be a mistake, the unraveling of the game.

What amateur is going to want to hit balls that don't go as far with clubs that don't propel them as far when their golfing icons are using better performing products ?

It won't work.

It has to be a unified effort with the USGA, PGA, PGA Tour, R&A, Europian Tour, etc., etc.

Bifurcation sounds good, but in practice, would be an abject failure.

[Tom_Doak]

A studious fellow from one of the equipment companies told me ten years ago that his biggest fear was that the USGA would become irrelevant.

But it was not because he was afraid they would make changes to the equipment rules and the big manufacturers wouldn't follow.  It was because the equipment companies were offshoring more and more of the product work to China ... first the manufacturing and now the engineering ... and it was only a matter of time before the Chinese realized they made the lot of it and didn't need guys like Mr. King making most of the money and taking most of the credit for it.  And if the Chinese are running the show, they will make whatever they want to, and we'd just better learn to like it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

The question I have for Mr King is why does he seem to want the USGA to be irrelevant ?

What's the long term benefit for his firm ?

It would seem as if he wants the reins taken off I&B which might have a disastrous impact on your design work while also turning the game into a sport for clowns.

400+ yard drives for the pros, 300+ yard drives for amateurs ?
I see chaos, not order, ruination not protection, should the governing bodies fade from existance.

The game would cease to be golf.

[Jerry Kluger]

Pat: My interpretation of bifurcation would be the amateur playing one ball and the professional playing another ball that does not go as far. It could also include limitations in shaft materials, i.e. steel driver shafts as well as the possibility of woods that were actually made out of wood.

Tom: The Chinese may have taken over the manufacture of many products but there are very few where they control the R & D and standards.  In fact, there is some indication of manufacturing returning to the US because of a decrease in the differential cost to produce something in China versus the US.

[Michael Whitaker]

Jslonis,

The problem with bifurcation is that the amateur will always want to play with the equipment the PGA Tour guys play, hence a roll-back for Non-PGA Tour players would result in tremendous pressure to yield in that area.  

I understand his corporate responsibilities come first, but he's no steward of the game

Patrick,

I don't see where having a different set of equipment rules for pros vs amateurs is a problem. You don't find too many amateur baseball players yearning to play with wooden bats.

In your opinion, why are wooden bats used in professional baseball while metal bats are used at all other levels of the game?

Do you think that the use of wooden bats at the professional level of baseball has resulted in tremendous pressure for non-professionals  to "yield in that area?"

[Jerry Kluger]

Michael: I agree with you about wooden bats but there are two differences between baseball and golf.  One of which is relevant to the discussion and one which is not.  First, the baseball stadiums are owned by those who control the sport so they would not allow metal bats as they would make all the stadiums obsolete which is not the case in golf where those in control don't have a financial interest in golf course costs, etc.  Second, metal bats would make it far too dangerous for spectators as the ball would be traveling much faster and people would get seriously hurt if they were hit by balls.

[RJ_Daley]

King and all B&I are in a position they can't loose, no matter how anything comes down.

If the bifurcation comes over a slow dribble out of minor division of rules as mentioned they already have a chink in that armour with the grooves, then all TM and the others do is for the next several years make more wedges and most am golfers will still buy the groove that are not approved for the pros or certain am USGA competitions.  If the ball is rolled back only for the highest am tournaments an pros, and the current market of long distance - high performance balls allowed for ams... well all the manufacturers will have a small operation to make competition balls and still sell the full market compliment of current hot tech balls, and ultimately make more money.  Under bifurcation, manufacturers will make more money, not less.  Competitions will still be as exciting (maybe more so) if a set of tournament spec are imposed.  How do manufacturers or pros loose.  As they as players develope from early ams of teen years showing promise, at somepoint they will have to switch to competition balls and learn their craft with them, if they want to compete in scratch or high amatuer competions, or make money as a pro.  Simple.  What is the big deal on the bifurcated performance ball?

But, if the USGA wants to dial the rule on ball specs back for all golf as a unified rule maker with R&A, then the manufacturers can sue, or conform and see how the courts rule and cards are dealt.  If that happens, manufacturers will have to make a crap load of manufacturing changes, and they'll just sell all the more balls as the new unified rule takes place.

I hope the USGA calls Kings hand and makes a rule with the R&A (one way or the other) and then plant their feet and enforce it.

This is where the ANGC could make an impact on the game far greater than letting some female plutocrat - olegarch join.  Impose a competition ball on the toon-a-mint.  And, double the first place prize money (even if only for one test pilot competition ball experimental year).  See if the pros will boycott.  Then, put on the best damn toon-a-mint ever.  Loosen the expenditure on the budget and go all out.  After a fine tournament is held, and no objectionable thing other than good golf ensues; then what will be the adverse impact in any court case manufacturers might bring?  There would be no restriction of commerce, given only the ANGC imposed their own local rule.  But, with a successful tournament, that will start the ball rolling, so to speak, for more roll backs on long distance - high performance tech that is putting the pro and top levels of the game on such a disparate trajectory from the everyday joe, where the tech isn't really having a big impact on scoring or increasing course length, since most back tees are already 6700-7000 and the average player should be at 6000-6200 anyway.  

The USGA and R&A make the rules, and they need to step up and come out from under their desks and take these manufacturers on.  If they loose, we are already on a manufacturers dominated path.  So, a loss in court for USGA won't be any worse than if they do nothing at all and do become irrelavant as King challenges.  

Finally, if King and manufacturers win and it gets so that tech makes golf too  expensive for interested participants to keep up with yearly roll outs of more tech and render courses obsolete, then in the end the manufacturers will loose anyway, because they will loose the game as it becomes a game for clowns .... very wealthy clowns.... as suggested above.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

I don't see where having a different set of equipment rules for pros vs amateurs is a problem.
You don't find too many amateur baseball players yearning to play with wooden bats.

Michael, you should have left off the words, "yearning to play with wooden bats"

The demographic and number of those playing amateur golf and amateur baseball is radically different

Your analogy is flawed for a number of reasons.
First, the ball is regulated.
And the same ball is used by everyone.
The bat is regulated and the ruling bodies in baseball have determined that the bat (equipment) to be used will not be the "hot" bat, whereas golf's ruling bodies have failed to a degree and permit the "hot" equipment.  So, if the rules were bifurcated and the "hot" equipment ONLY banned for amateurs, do you think there'd be widespread disregard for the rules ?


In your opinion, why are wooden bats used in professional baseball while metal bats are used at all other levels of the game?
See my explanation above


Do you think that the use of wooden bats at the professional level of baseball has resulted in tremendous pressure for non-professionals  to "yield in that area?"

no, because the Pros are using the NON-hot equipment and the gravitational pull in the sports universe is from the "HOT" equipment

[Tom_Doak]

RJ Daley:

Do you really seriously think that the people in charge at Augusta National want to take on the world "for the good of the game" ?

It's a nice fantasy but I have seen no sign that they have any interest in it.

As for the USGA, they used to be worried about having the lawsuit and losing their money.  Lately I'd guess they are more worried about losing the lawsuit and being deemed irrelevant in court.

[David Kelly]

The only reason metal bats are used below the level of organized baseball is simply cost.  However in the last few years the NCAA has put restrictions on the performance of metal bats to make them more like wooden bats.  The results - runs allowed, batting average, home run rate, and pitcher's ERA have all plummeted and the average time of the games has dropped as well. 

[RJ_Daley]

TD, if you ask why would the folks at ANGC do something like that.... because they can.

If nothing else, they only do things when and how they want to, on their own schedule.  The long period of women's rights voices and Martha Burke and troup marching at their gates really didn't phaze them, IMO.  They just decided to do it, when they decided to do it, and could easily have kept up the long running policy of no women as long at they darn well pleased.  With the racial component, that may be one gnawing problem that wouldn't wait any longer, but it seems the still only desegregated on their own terms and when they decided.  So, yeah.  I think they could go forward and do something like "take on the world" as you phrase it.  But in reality,  I don't see it as the magnitude of taking on the world.  I see it more like, hey we are the world.  We'll do it if we want.  Now, I'd be the last guy in the world to actually be able to characterize the nature of the ANGC membership in terms of generally hard core traditionalists about the grand old game of golf.  I'd only be guessing.  But, it seems possible to me that they are of a fairly traditionalist mindset, and maybe they are also at their limits of having to change the course more and more to accomodate the big toon-a-mint, and see the strangeness of their own members playing from a 100 yards back of the tees they have to put in to have the big boys play one week a year.   Maybe they too lament at the planted trees and defined rough and harken back to the good old days, and if they are in that frame of mind, they darn well may say, screw it... we're going to get this dial back of distance rolling with a competition ball for our invitational. 

Wouldn't it be fun to have your  elite club be in the position to make that much dramatic impact?   I don't know why they already didn't do it. 

[Michael Whitaker]

Michael, you should have left off the words, "yearning to play with wooden bats

Ha, Ha... you are correct... I guess amateurs do yearn for wooden bats as that would mean they have made it to the Big Show.

The bat is regulated and the ruling bodies in baseball have determined that the bat (equipment) to be used will not be the "hot" bat, whereas golf's ruling bodies have failed to a degree and permit the "hot" equipment.  So, if the rules were bifurcated and the "hot" equipment ONLY banned for amateurs, do you think there'd be widespread disregard for the rules?

I was thinking exactly the opposite... the "hot" equipment should be banned for the pros (like baseball) and only the amateurs could use it. Most amateurs can't relate to the professional game anyway, why contend they should use the same equipment?

[Michael Whitaker]

Michael: I agree with you about wooden bats but there are two differences between baseball and golf.  One of which is relevant to the discussion and one which is not.  First, the baseball stadiums are owned by those who control the sport so they would not allow metal bats as they would make all the stadiums obsolete which is not the case in golf where those in control don't have a financial interest in golf course costs, etc.  Second, metal bats would make it far too dangerous for spectators as the ball would be traveling much faster and people would get seriously hurt if they were hit by balls.

Jerry - I wonder... if the USGA had a financial interest in courses do you think they would have allowed equipment performance to get  away from them like it did? I'll bet they would have not been too keen on spending millions (billions?) of their own money to renovate and lengthen their playing fields just to accommodate the manufacturers' desire to sell more equipment.

[V. Kmetz]

RJD,

I agree with your perspective...that Augusta National and its unique, powerful and unencumbered position are the most likely agents of change.  One of the reasons I agree is that they have been one of the leaders in "innovation" in the presentation of a tournament to date.

Some things have been trivial and a product of the Roberts Autocrat era, which ended four decades ago, but behind much of it, before and after, has been a desire to maintain the link between the days of Golf's past with its present.  Anachronism" is something of an ethos for that event...and a charge they seem not to fear but embrace.

As to Tom D's question of motivation; it's well-put and well to consider -- and my answer is that I don't feel as though they have really been provoked or pushed to respond by the threats of technology beyond a common and plain response...they had room to expand, lengthen and re-shape in 1998, 2002, 2005 and so forth.  A normal (even for them) course of action has been to do just what they did...

But the impetus may go in a direction to where they cannot respond adequately (Patrick M has asked which championship course will go beyond 8000 yards first) and if things come to that point in time (not to mention grooves, grounded putters, etc) I think they might respond radically, where their ability to control their own idea of tournament exhibition is pushed beyond their ability to do it, under any other model.

Many, including myself, have thought on occasion that if ANGC were to be pushed to such a point, then they would take their ball and go home rather than swallow something they didn't want to do...but my thinking has evolved (revolved?) to your sense of it, that pushed to radicalize the course to 76, 77, 7800 yards...they would offer a tournament ball then accept the hastened irrelevance of technologies latest launch.

Whether it would be true or not is open to debate, but I could see ANGC thinking that such a move would keep them as the leading stewards of the game and its connections to the past and past traditions.

That's what I think their motivation would be.

In 2013, they are not yet provoked...but in 2023 or 2033, perhaps.

cheers

vk

[Richard Choi]

Like I said before another thread, it was idiotic for USGA to rattle cages for pointless changes like the grooves (which did not effect the scores even a bit) and belly putters (you won't see any effect on scoring here either). At least a ball change would have been a worthwhile battle. USGA is just going to reap what it has sewn.

As to bifurcation, it is not the end of the world. Almost every other sport uses different rules for various competition levels and they do just fine.

In football and basketball (and baseball too), every level of competition uses different balls. Baseball uses different bats (and it is not because of safety, it is because of stats). I think those sports do fine with their bifurcation and I don't see why golf is so different.

[Scott Warren]

I don't understand why equipment companies would necessarily have a problem with a ball rollback.

As long as balls deteriorate in condition with play, sink in water and can be lost in grass and bushes, golfers will need just as many as they ever did.

As even with distance regulated, they can advance their product in terms of spin rates, durability, aerodynamics, colour/visibility...

[Mark Pearce]

For those advocating bifurcation, where do you draw the line between the "expert" rules and the "basic" rules.  Clearly professional tours are played under expert rules.  What about top amateur competitions?  Expert or basic?  The distance competitors in the US Amateur and the Amateur Championship are hitting the ball is the same as the pros, so presumably expert rules?  Also, if the top amateurs played basic rules then the step up to the pro game would be made, presumably, harder.  So the top amateur competitions are played under expert rules too, I assume.  What then, of club competitions?  There are two or three members of my club who play high level amateur golf but also compete in club competitions (of which, as at most UK clubs, we have dozens a year).  Handicaps are calculated on these.  Are top amateurs who participate in club competitions going to have to play with two different sets of equipment?  How would handicap calculations be made where two different sets of rules apply to competitions which qualify for handicapping purposes?  The comparison with baseball may be attractive but for a number of reasons it dioesn't work.  Bifurcation would be a nightmare and would create more problems than it would solve.

The mantra that a roll-back of any sort (whether it be the anchored putter or the ball) would lose players to the game simply doesn't ring true to me.  In fact, I doubt most players would really notice if the ball was rolled back 5%.  And that's without considering the fact that since the disrtance advances of recent years have generated greater benefit for longer players, it seems likely that a sensible roll back ruling could "roll back" longer player proprtionately further than shorter players.  It's likely that a roll-back would barely affect the vast majority of golfers.

[Sean_A]

I don't understand why equipment companies would necessarily have a problem with a ball rollback.

As long as balls deteriorate in condition with play, sink in water and can be lost in grass and bushes, golfers will need just as many as they ever did.

As even with distance regulated, they can advance their product in terms of spin rates, durability, aerodynamics, colour/visibility...

cott

If I had a company on the frontline of developing innovative products I would not like to see a significant area where my product can be improved and marketed as such taken off the table.  Having a competitive edge keeps the big boys ahead of the little boys.  So far as manufacturers go, bifurcation is a great situation.  I am not in the least surprised that a head of golf equipment manufacturer would be all for two sets of tech rules...only its tough to come out and directly say so.   

I really don't know if bifurcation would be good or bad for golf.  I suspect, for the vast majority of so-called golfers, it wouldn't make tosh of difference.  I also suspect there is a lot of anguish being drummed up for little reason.  I have always said it isn't tech which is primarily bad for golf courses, its the knee jerk reaction to tech which is the main problem.   

Mark

You mustn't forget that UK and worldwide club golf is not even close to the majority of golfers.  I spose clubs would have to figure out how to cope.  I can easily see a separate division for each comp that allows for bifurcation, just as there are separate divisions based on handicap.  Its not that difficult to do.  I bet you would get guys jumping between the two for the big events at a club. 

Ciao

[Mark Pearce]

Sean,

Those not playing competitive golf could bifurcate themselves very easily.  Guys who don't play competitions could (they can now, after all) just buy non-conforming balls and clubs.  You don't need bifurcated rules for that.  How would your idea of different divisions with different rules be applied to my clubs singles matchplay knock-out competition which is second only in importance to the club championship?  Would our England international have to play expert or basic rules clubs and ball against me?  If he had to play expert rules, would I have to as well?

[Sean_A]

Sean,

Those not playing competitive golf could bifurcate themselves very easily.  Guys who don't play competitions could (they can now, after all) just buy non-conforming balls and clubs.  You don't need bifurcated rules for that.  How would your idea of different divisions with different rules be applied to my clubs singles matchplay knock-out competition which is second only in importance to the club championship?  Would our England international have to play expert or basic rules clubs and ball against me?  If he had to play expert rules, would I have to as well?

Mark

I suspect club championships (and probably a few other events) at most "championship" clubs would be based on pro rules.  I also suspect that top flight amateurs might be more choosy about club membership.  As it is now, many leave short courses in favour of long courses because they know its easier to maintain the necessary handicap at longer courses because of the huge disparity of course ratings based primarily on distance.  Think about a 2 capper (a guy on the edge for qualifying for a lot of top flight am events) trying to score on a course rated 69 compared to one rated 74.  Often this means guys can't shoot over par or their handicap goes up - so the answer is to bail to another club.  Anyway, I don't see huge logistical issues with bifurcated member comps.  As I said, it already exists based on handicap so its not a huge step to bifurcate based on tech.  I am not saying its ideal, but neither is bifurcation based on handicap, but it works fine.

Ciao   

[Sidney Lin]

This is certainly a heated debate with a lot of love for the "good old days".

Well hello world we use computers and the Internet these days and we design on CAD not tracing paper. Welcome to the future!

I have said this before. What is wrong with tech advances and the ball. What is it that offends so many?

I ask the question because companies like Adidas and Nike choose golf to spend money and make money over other sports. Does Nike make squash racquets? Who remembers squash anyway? Be grateful. If they choose to improve golf equipment to let the average male and female golfer enjoy the game and maybe once in a round feel like they are a pro cause they spun the ball on a green or carried "that" bunker. Is that a crime?

What's wrong with an athlete that has trained for a game they love since age 6 that can now drive the ball further than Annie, jack and Sam?

I love to see pros scoring birdies and eagles and tearing a course apart. I hate watching them screw their faces cause some administrator is trying to make there job harder. It's like me coming to your work and saying no more computers back to typewriters, triplicate, snail mail and abacuses. You see how ridiculous the equipment debate gets?

Let them make what they want and broaden the game. What is the notion of protecting par for? We spend our whole lives elusively chasing breaking par. So what if a golf course is past it's use by date.... Put It in the same pile as the typewriter, the abacus and all other obsolete things.

And before you attack me and all that, I love heritage and I love tradition and all that, I am the guy that plays blades, has a blade putter, wears the shoes with a kiltie, loves plaid shorts and tweed however I believe in progress and embrace it that's why I play a hybrid and play a titanium driver with a graphite shaft. However the best thing for me is that technology whether it be the ball or equipment has let my wife enjoy the game, let my clients enjoy the game and let me see some terrific golf played by professionals.

The ball is a small part of the game. Athletes train more and are more specific now in their approach to the game. If you rollback where do you stop? No more sports psychologists? No more wearing your lucky undies? No more using your lucky coin as a marker?

[Rich Goodale]

Pat M

You've got it wrong.  Bifurcation will start at the highest levels of the game and be based on requiring restricted/old technology for the highest levels of competition and a free-for-all at the lowest ends.  The restricted technology will filter down to the masses--at various rates in different jurisdictions.  Golf course owners, golf course architects and Vegas will love it!

Mark P

UK players will be the first to gravitate to applying the the new "pro" rules to all levels of approved competitions (i.e. club medals, club match play) for a number of reasons.  Firstly, they've done it before (the elimination of the 1.62" ball in the mid-80s).  Secondly, they are more compliant slaves to authority than the average Colonial.  Thirdly, the vast majority of the courses in the UK are well under 6,500 yds in length, and the ones that have grown bigger (e.g. the Old Course) have done so only to accomodate the "pros" (how many of us (if any) have played TOC from anywhere near the current "Championship" tees?).  Chaos may reign in the "bounce game", society outing segments of the sport, but who cares?

King is right.  As Kojak would say, "Bifurcation, Baby!"  And as I and others have said on this forum for more than a decade, it will start at Augusta.  They don't need the money and I'm sure it pisses them off that they have to undergo the hassle of changing and disrupting their course every year just to try to play catch-up with technology.

Rich

[Connor Dougherty]

This is certainly a heated debate with a lot of love for the "good old days".

Well hello world we use computers and the Internet these days and we design on CAD not tracing paper. Welcome to the future!

I have said this before. What is wrong with tech advances and the ball. What is it that offends so many?

It lengthens golf courses to insane distances, (which leads to longer, slower rounds), increases the maintenance costs (which increases the cost of golf), and increases the required space for a golf course in a world where space is more and more scarce. Golfers may still be attracted to the game but it creates bigger problems that could doom golf in the future.

I ask the question because companies like Adidas and Nike choose golf to spend money and make money over other sports. Does Nike make squash racquets? Who remembers squash anyway? Be grateful. If they choose to improve golf equipment to let the average male and female golfer enjoy the game and maybe once in a round feel like they are a pro cause they spun the ball on a green or carried "that" bunker. Is that a crime?

Maybe this is just me being young and not knowing something about squash but I don't think it's ever been remotely as popular as golf.

What's wrong with an athlete that has trained for a game they love since age 6 that can now drive the ball further than Annie, jack and Sam?

How does a technology rollback affect the athlete that has trained for golf? Even if you take away the technology, the athleticism still plays a role, maybe even more so.

I love to see pros scoring birdies and eagles and tearing a course apart. I hate watching them screw their faces cause some administrator is trying to make there job harder. It's like me coming to your work and saying no more computers back to typewriters, triplicate, snail mail and abacuses. You see how ridiculous the equipment debate gets?

To a certain extent I agree with you here. But at the same time, if we just let it progress, do we really want to watch every pro drive all the par 4's? I think that would get boring.

Let them make what they want and broaden the game. What is the notion of protecting par for? We spend our whole lives elusively chasing breaking par. So what if a golf course is past it's use by date.... Put It in the same pile as the typewriter, the abacus and all other obsolete things.

I doubt many people worry about "protecting par" on here considering most of us don't even like the concept of par. The problem is the majority of good golfers seem to think it matters, and this has influenced the construction of golf courses. But with regards to your "put it in the pile with the typewriter" comment, are you really prepared to lose courses like Cruden Bay or Swinley Forest? I worked as a caddy for a summer at Claremont, which is a MacKenzie course that is sub 6000 yards. It has a ton of character as it is now, but it wouldn't survive more improvements to technology. I can't think of a course in the San Francisco East Bay that could take its place.

And before you attack me and all that, I love heritage and I love tradition and all that, I am the guy that plays blades, has a blade putter, wears the shoes with a kiltie, loves plaid shorts and tweed however I believe in progress and embrace it that's why I play a hybrid and play a titanium driver with a graphite shaft. However the best thing for me is that technology whether it be the ball or equipment has let my wife enjoy the game, let my clients enjoy the game and let me see some terrific golf played by professionals.

For the record, I've was for a long time a fan of technology and the progression of it. I play blades but still have the big grooves and use Titleist 910 woods with custom shafts that help me hit the ball farther. I used to think that it should just get better and better, but I have realized it does detrimental damage. I think where it is now is good. Many of the classic courses that are shorter are still a joy to play for almost all of us, and the long courses that have built for this technology may have trouble surviving if there was a rollback (I'm looking at you Pete Dye French Lick). But if it got any worse 

The ball is a small part of the game. Athletes train more and are more specific now in their approach to the game. If you rollback where do you stop? No more sports psychologists? No more wearing your lucky undies? No more using your lucky coin as a marker?

I don't see the comparison. You could roll back to the 1500's and the athleticism of the golfer would probably not be disturbed. Sports psychologists help the golfer control his thoughts but don't magically make his golf ball go 50 yards further. Lucky undies may make you think you'll knock it stiff with that 5 iron, but it's not going to make it any easier for you. The lucky coin may give you the confidence to make a putt, but it's not going to move the golf ball into the hole. 

[Mark Pearce]

Rich,

If you are right (and I think you are on this occasion), doesn't that mean that bifurcation will in hibit the growth of the game?  Joe Public may buy a set of TaylorMade AtomicRocketBallz clubs and play TaylorMade MegalongSuperspin balls and find he loves the game.  He may decide he enjoys it so much he wants to join a club.  He will then find that, in order to participate in club competitions he'll have to buy a second set of rolled back clubs and balls.  At which point he'll decide not to join the club after all and maybe take up unbifurcated crown green bowling.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()