What is SKILL in golf?

[JMEvensky]

"A hypothetical.

The PGA Tour institutes its own I & B regs for its own tournaments.The European Tour adopts them,as well.The USGA/R & A choose to adopt them for both Opens.

Would this bifurcation eventually lead to unification(successively lower levels adopting the regs)?This is the Goodale Theory which now makes a lot of sense to me.

Do the USGA/R & A fear someone else usurping their rules-making hegemony or would they welcome it,assuming that equipment would be "reined in"?

Couldn't the PGA Tour act as a "beard"?"




Jeff:

I'm not sure what you mean by some of that or in some of that. What do you mean by bifurcation (I&B) would lead to unification? There is I&B unfication at pretty much all levels of golf under the R&A and USGA administrations now and has been for many many decades.

Would the USGA and R&A like to give up their control of I&B regulation and administration or do they fear someone usurping that area? That's an interesting question. I'd say probably not because it puts both of them in a position of added power but on the other side of the coin they do have to continuously face obstacles in many forms from the I&B commercial interests. It's also not exactly cheap to test and administer to I&B rules and regs. I'm not sure any Tour would want that cost and responsibility unless they just planned to totally cave in to whatever commercial interests in I&B wanted to do.

Would the PGA Tour like to get into I&B? Actually, if they ever tried to do that there are a few legal and beauracratic hoops they'd have to pass through that were set up under the settlement of those PING lawsuits back in the late 1980s. (Finchem once mentioned that the PGA TOUR might get into I&B Rules and Regs in his frustration with the rift on COR issue between the R&A and USGA but in about a day apparently one of his lawyers explained to him what the PGA TOUR would have to do to get into I&B regulation. About two days later he went public stating they would not do that.

As far your remark about the PGA Tour being a "beard", I'm not sure what you mean by that.
 
 
 

I understand that unification currently exists at all levels.I was paraphrasing Rich Goodale who argued that,assuming an equipment rollback was the endgame,bifurcation at the highest levels would eventually work its way through the lower levels.Or,bifurcation = unification eventually.

I guess my hypothesis assumed that,in their heart of hearts,the USGA would like to find a way to roll back equipment without ending up in court.Using the PGA Tour seemed like a better back-door then a "Masters" ball.If the PGA Tour would have the same legal issues,the idea wouldn't make much sense.

A "beard" is just a person used to mask an actual relationship.Maybe the USGA would like to have the Tour seen as the promoters of an equipment rollback.

Again,all the above assumed the USGA wants the rollback.I have no clue if that's true or not.

[Bruce Leland]

Bruce Leland:

In your post #38 it looks like you're advocating what we call "bifurcation" (two sets (at least) of I&B Rules and Regs including so-called "competition" balls). It looks pretty clear to me that the Joint Statement of Principles pretty much precludes anything but a single set of I&B Rules and Regs for all golfers as it has always been.

On the other item you mentioned in your post #38---ie fear of manufacturers lawsuits, I think they were very concerned about that a few years ago but perhaps not so much anymore. Personally I think the thing that may concern them more from the manufacturers in the future is not lawsuits but having the manufacturers basically just walk away from the R&A/USGA I&B Rules and Regs and conformance. After all R&A/USGA I&B conformance is strictly voluntary and it always has been. Those two organizations have absolutely no structure or ability to enforce those I&B conformance Rules and Regs in anything other than their own thirteen national championships.

Tom, thank you for expanding on your intent in starting this thread and for explaining what you didn't mean it to become.  As for bifurcation, I am not a proponent although I can see how you came to that conclusion based upon my post.  I am an advocate of controlling the distance that the ball travels as are the authors of the JSOP.  This does not necessarily lead to bifurcation as we presently have a conforming ball list.  Golfers who chose to play in USGA, State Golf Assn. or other prominent amateur events are usually playing under the Rules of Golf and said list.

As for the fear of litigation, I'll concede that you make a fine point.  It's a very interesting discussion and one that I am passionate about so I welcome the JSOP but in my own mind, the jury is still out on the original question you posed.