News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Geoff_Shackelford

  • Karma: +0/-0
Finchem ready to step up to the plate?
« on: February 10, 2003, 09:26:58 AM »
http://www.gopbi.com/partners/pbpost/epaper/editions/sunday/sports_e3544c05841c601a00ec.html

Finchem's cure for distance: Change ball specifications
By Craig Dolch, Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
Sunday, February 9, 2003

KEY BISCAYNE -- Ball go far?Too far, believes PGA Tour Commissioner Tim Finchem.For several years, he's watched the world's top golfers go to increasingly great lengths with their drives, not to mention their 3-woods and 2-irons. He consistently has said he's been content to let the U.S. Golf Association continue in their roles as the guardians of the game's rules in this country. But Finchem's mood is changing.This year, he has watched Ernie Els hit 400-yard drives with his new Titleist equipment to help him win the PGA Tour's first two events. He's heard long-hitting players such as Phil Mickelson and Vijay Singh talk about how they've added 10-15 yards to their drives.But now, it seems everyone is hitting the long ball. Heck, the entire field averaged more than 300 yards at the Phoenix Open. The average driving distance for the Tour has jumped almost 10 yards -- from 279.8 to 289 -- from last year to this year. Finchem thinks they've finally gone too far."It is something that we need to be concerned about," Finchem said. "I think it's imperative that we get a line drawn in the sand. You may say, 'Gee, golf and the PGA Tour is doing great, and we are.' But I do think prudence would argue for looking at this thing from the long term."Finchem then said the Tour may not be willing much longer to leave this dilemma to the USGA to solve. He would prefer not to have to get into the rule-making business on equipment specifications, but he doesn't want to see par-5s turned into par-4s and more par-4s that are becoming drivable."The USGA has done a good job on the clubhead with the COR limitations," Finchem said. "But I do not believe they have -- and I know they're working on it -- but they're not where they need to be with respect to the ball. We are anxious because we are continuing to see some distance enhancements in a short period of time. Unless something happens, we may have to move toward a system of bifurcating the equipment specs for amateurs and professionals. In that case, we would be more involved."So Finchem is saying what legends such as Jack Nicklaus and Arnold Palmer have been saying for years -- it's the ball that has to be changed. Instead of spending millions of dollars every year to redesign great courses, simply have the professionals use a ball that won't have more hang time than Vince Carter.Of course, it's not that simple. As soon as Finchem hints the Tour wants to control equipment, he knows lawyers for these manufacturers will be rubbing their hands together in anticipation of another successful lawsuit. Finchem makes it clear he thinks these equipment companies should continue to use whatever technology is necessary to make the game easier to play for the average player. Finchem pointed out a lot of the players are bigger, stronger and in better shape. But while chicks may dig the long ball in baseball, he believes that at some point, the more the ball travels, the less fans are going to care."There is some point -- nobody knows where it is -- when the amateur player feels divorced and doesn't really appreciate the game at this level just because it's so different that it doesn't become particularly relevant. The second thing is, if everybody is driving every par-4, it's not particularly interesting to watch."
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

USTA

Re: Finchem ready to step up to the plate?
« Reply #1 on: February 10, 2003, 09:38:39 AM »
Tennis has the ball regulated, so why not golf?

http://www.usta.com/RULES/default.spsiType=924&icustompageid=1318
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tony Ristola

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Finchem ready to step up to the plate?
« Reply #2 on: February 10, 2003, 09:51:45 AM »
Almost exactly one year ago Finchem fired a shot over the heads of the USGA. I hope he backs his words with a plan of action sooner rather than later, so the USGA and R&A are confronted...and the issue becomes very public.  Let the discussion begin.  

TEPaul...waiting for the USGA irrelevency reply... :)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Finchem ready to step up to the plate?
« Reply #3 on: February 10, 2003, 10:22:42 AM »
Hootie said much the same thing last year. Maybe the issue is developing some critical mass. Let's hope so.

Btw, Love hit 3 wood, PW on 9 and 10 yesterday. That is incredible, maybe more shocking than him hitting a 4i into 18, which was shocking enough.

Bob
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Finchem ready to step up to the plate?
« Reply #4 on: February 10, 2003, 11:04:20 AM »
Tony:

You're waiting for my USGA irrelevancy reply?

The back pages on this site are filled with my concerns about how the USGA can be cast into irrelevancy and many of those posts are in response to you.

My point is that the USGA could be dangerously close to being cast into irrelevancy in B&I for a number of reasons.

The primary one is if they roll back the ball or do something that the manufacturers won't accept and the manufacturers then just begin to market USGA nonconforming balls and the public buys them!

In my opinon, the only thing that stands between the USGA's future relevancy or irrelevancy in the B&I world is the public's willingness to buy USGA nonconforming equipment.

You've said in the past that the USGA should accept their responsibility to protect the game and its future by essentially laying down the law to the manufacturers and the other interests in golf.

I'm saying that they should accept their responsibility to protect the game and its future but that simply laying down the law (the way you seem to suggest) may not be the proper way for them to do it.

I've said for years now that what the USGA should try to do now (should have done a few years ago) is to attempt to bring all the necessary entities of golf together and try to negotiate a logical course of action amongst them all for how the distance the ball has been traveling on the Tour level could be brought back under control.

Because of what the USGA has been and what they still barely are they could do that in my opinion.

They should use their influence and their responsiblity to bring together;

1. The manufacturers
2. All the world's tours
3. All the world's architectural organizations
4. The R&A
5. Representatives of all the world's golfing unions
6. Any other significant commercial entities involved in golf

And say; "Look, there's a real problem in golf today with the distance the ball is traveling. We need to sit down and plan a course of action where the game and it's architecture will be protected from this technologically spiking problem for the next 5-10-20-100-200-years--or even forever."

That's what they should do--that's what they should have done 10 years ago.

But again, you say they should just lay down the law. I say that's too dangerous now because,

1. Despite what you've said, neither the USGA nor their B&I rules and regs IS THE LAW. All they are and their B&I rules are is an entity with guidelines that for whatever reason the world of golf has heretofore VOLUNTARILY followed. And that includes the manufacturers, the tours, other associations, golfers etc.

2. That day and that scenario of voluntary compliance is coming dangerously close to an end, most particularly if the USGA makes some misstep now in the procedure they use to attempt to do something about this.

They should have done this 10 years ago. They should have gone to the 2020 convocation three years ago, but they did neither. Buzz Taylor tried to get in front of this problem and he definitely saw to his and the USGA's surprise just how much the world of golf has changed, particularly the world of manufacturing. At the very least they should have got out in front of this thing in a far more comprehensive and effective way and tried to explain better what they're there for and what they actually are and aren't. And the first thing they should explain is they are NOT the law of golf--only an organization that's trying for voluntary compliance amongst all of golf (American golf) to protect the game.

That's what they should have done and can still do.

They need to know better that time and golf are not going to wait forever for them to do this.

Clearly Finchem's concern and his remarks should show them again that time is running out for them to act!

Finchem said this same thing over a year ago and then immediately backed off. Not many know why he did that. Obvisously he was trying to pressure the USGA and the R&A into settling their COR rift and he may have been responsible or partially so for accomplishing that.

But now he's back again fully realizing the process his PGA Tour will have to jump through hoops to accomplish if he's serious that the PGA Tour will ever get into B&I testing and regulating--something he surely would rather not do but just might if the USGA continues with their inaction.

That process for the PGA Tour includes an independent committee that we've been looking at for two years now.

My recommendation would be to regenerate that committee, make George Bush Sr the Chairman of it and to use that committee as both an "honest broker", mediator and negotiator to bring all the entities mentioned above in golf together under the aegis of the USGA to sit down together and work this problem out for the game and it's future.

Obviously there would be plenty of give and take in a process like that but I think that's the only way it can be at this point. And to me that's clearly more productive than whatever they're all doing now which is basically just piecemeal reacting to each other in a mostly adverserial way.

That's what I think the USGA should do right now and that's the way I think they should do it. Anything else, any other process than that I think runs the risk of the USGA being cast into irrelevancy in the world of B&I and probably soon.

And furthermore, as I've said for years now, I think the USGA should hire one David Boies, and bring him to all the sessions of a convocation like this. He's apparently one of the best trust lawyer in the world and if the USGA doesn't hire him soon some manufacturer probably will. From some of the high-powered lawyer types I've talked to about this man--they all say he's definitely a legal maverik but no legal team they're aware of relishes being on the other side from him in a court room or otherwise.

But I love all the little problems within the larger problem that need to be worked out, and the irony of it all. Within this convocation hopefully would be George Bush Sr as the chairman of this committee whose function is to bring this all together sitting at the same table as David Boies, the man who argued in front of the US Supreme Court to have his son, the current President of the United Sates be just an also ran candidate as Al Gore would have been President if Boies's case would have prevailed in the US Supreme Court and down the line to Florida (where Bush's other son would have been on the wrong side of the last Presidential election process too!).

The irony of all this is almost too hilarious for me to stand!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:02 PM by -1 »

Daniel Wexler

Re: Finchem ready to step up to the plate?
« Reply #5 on: February 10, 2003, 12:42:36 PM »
Tom Paul:

Obviously you and I tend to think similarly on these things, but on this particular point I'm with Tony, unequivocally.  It is well past time for the USGA to make golf what Sandy Tatum has referred to as an "identifiable, defined game."  This, in my opinion, means writing or re-writing the rules as they believe necessary, without regard to Callaway or Titleist's profit margins.  

I certainly agree with the notion that some PR work wouldn't hurt but a governing organization cannot blanch on fulfilling its responsibilities out of concern that some "golfers" may choose not to play by the rules.  [Aside: How many people actually comply 100% with the rules anyway?]  

To suggest that the USGA should do anything other than what they believe to be in golf's best interest out of concern that some players might not follow would seem to me an enormous step towards speeding up the onset of their own irrelevance.

I'm just not certain that the USGA really believes we've got a problem....

DW
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Finchem ready to step up to the plate?
« Reply #6 on: February 10, 2003, 01:42:35 PM »
Tom, you go about this like a Philidelphia lawyer.  Where did you say you lived? :)

OK, so there is this fear component of some sort of manufacturer's restraint of trade type lawsuit. (which I think is bogus)  I have heard the remarks about the R&A being particularly vulnerable due to their private club status as opposed to USGA non-profit org.  So, why not have Tom's big world entity of golf meeting and why don't they just form a bullet proof new ruling body organization to set the world wide rules of golf under one rules making body.  All the pro tours and all the amateurs, and all the local associations comply with the WGA in competitions, and that is that.  Comply or no handicap.  No handicap system, and what would happen to the biggest popular factor of the game, betting on your matches?  With all the Philidelphia lawyers out there who create all sort of legal entities that can't be taxed or sued in the corporate/political world, they ought to be able to devise an organizational structure that the primary part of Tom's argument, the fear of lawsuits, can't be shielded. ::)

How can the PGA tour be restrained from making their own competition rules?  All the other ball sports have competition specs on their balls.  Hockey has specs.  Why can't golf and the various tours say, X is the compression factor, or Y is the dimple pattern, or Z is the COR spec., and that is that!  ???
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

TEPaul

Re: Finchem ready to step up to the plate?
« Reply #7 on: February 10, 2003, 02:00:14 PM »
DanW:

I completely agree with your notion that many golfers may not play 100% by the Rules of Golf and also that the USGA should not be that concerned and certainly not intimidated by that fact.

But in this issue before us, I really believe the situation should be viewed with a very large distinction which very few golfers ever think of.

That is that there actually are two categories of USGA golf Rules;

1. The playing rules
2. The USGA's B&I rules and regs

If golfers abuse to some extent #1 it probably isn't really that big a deal unless they're doing it in a more formal competitive context. But if golfers are given the opportunity (which essentially they really don't now have) to abuse #2 that's an entirely different matter and one I see as potentially extremely problematic for the future of golf and architecture.

Tony Ristola and I really don't have a disagreement at all about what the eventual solution of this distance problem should be, I don't think, and we probably never have. What we've always had, though, is a real difference of opinion on the process of how to arrive at that similar solution.

I feel that Tony's solution (and probably yours) could certainly work, just that I see it as an unnecessarily dangerous process for the USGA at this point and then all of us if they fail (irrelevancy of any kind even B&I). And I feel that what the USGA needs to do now is actually far more comprehensive than just this ball or distance problem (believe it or not). I think there're a number of central issues in front of them now that could and will affect them and the future of the game.

I just can't see any problem with the USGA attempting to do now what I just recommended in concept. Frankly, if that didn't work with the ball or distance problem, why not then just doing what the two of you suggest and then seeing where that would eventually leave them?

What I'm talking about is probably more all encompassing and global not only with this problem but with other dangerous issues facing them.

I'm not in the slightest a monopolist but I believe the game's future rests in a very strong vertical organizational structure. Anything less than that's dangerous to the future of the game to me.

But it's funny how some look at the USGA, even those I know so well. Many of my golfing friends think the USGA should probably even pull back and only interest themselves in those that naturally might support them or a certain pure form of the game and just forget about the rest of the golfers out there. I think the USGA can do better than that because they already have shown they can. I want to see them represent more golfers in the future not less.

Even GeoffShac who I talk to a great deal about the USGA and the issues of it sees things far differently than me. I don't think it would be inaccurate or unfair to him for me to say that he appears to feel that they've probably already devolved to a large degree into irrelevancy and that the best outcome would be to just see them continue to devolve out of the picture except for their thirteen national competitions.

More remarkably even a guy like Frank Hannigan may even feel somewhat that way.

I just think all that is tremendously sad and so dangerous for the future of golf. If that happens golf will become like nothing we've ever see from it. If they're out of the picture to a large degree we'll never be able again to replace the USGA with anything that can function even half so well as they have for their first 100 years.

I'm not mindlessly defending what they're doing as some think, I just want to see them stay relevant, stay strong, get stronger and do what's right for the future of the game and all those who want to play it.

More particular to this thread it does seem Finchem is saying something significant again. It looks to me as if he's saying it to the USGA and R&A directly. Both organizations should listen to him this time and act, or one day soon it really will be too late for them in many ways.

The PGA Tour can be very valuable ally for the USGA and R&A in this distance issue. They should use this opportunity to recommend that the Tour and all the entities of the game sit down now and plan out an acceptable future for golf and certainly the world's golf architecture.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Finchem ready to step up to the plate?
« Reply #8 on: February 10, 2003, 02:13:48 PM »
RJ:

The PGA Tour can set up their own B&I rules but to do that they have to work through a process set up out of the PGATour/PING lawsuit settlement.

I'm not really worried about the manufacturers suing the USGA. If that happened I think the USGA would win about every single time (particularly if they hired David Boies). In a B&I lawsuit the USGA's defense (and they will only be a defendant in B&I suits) is so simple and straight forward in my opinion.

The thing that worries me the most is if the manufacturers begin to market nonconforming equipment (balls and impliments) and the public buys it. If that happens, the sky is the limit in technology and what we're talking about right now compared to what could be will be like looking at a hill compared to the Alps. Then there'll be no restraints at all on technology.

You want to talk about a danger to architecture that would be it.

I don't see what's so Philadephia lawyerish about what I'm saying. What in the world is wrong with trying to bring all the entities of golf together and discuss the game's future and how to protect it? This should have happened long ago. It certainly should have happened the moment after Buzz Taylor put his foot in his mouth!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Gary Smith (Guest)

Re: Finchem ready to step up to the plate?
« Reply #9 on: February 10, 2003, 02:29:44 PM »
When the big world golf summit happens, do you think we could have opening and closing ceremonies, complete with lots and lots of speeches, bagpipes, flags, and marches?

 :) ::)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Finchem ready to step up to the plate?
« Reply #10 on: February 10, 2003, 02:57:20 PM »
When the world golf association is finally formed, I trust the founders will have the good sense to not give veto power to the French or Germans. ::)

Tom, If the rules and the handicap system don't allow for certain things, I have no fear that renegade manufacturing of non-conforming equipment will be the slightest of factors.  If even one fellow competitor in a friendly 4some shows up on the first tee of your weekly skins match with non-conforming equipment, are your buddies going to let him in on it?  All manufactures of other sporting goods can easily make more juiced balls or more efficient equipment, but they don't (on any significant scope of mass production) nor do they market that their non-conforming baseball goes further, their non-conforming hockey sticks shoot faster, their non-conforming footballs kick further and pass truer.  It just isn't a factor if everyone knows the equipment is illegal by the recognized rules or commissions of the games...
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

Slag_Bandoon

Re: Finchem ready to step up to the plate?
« Reply #11 on: February 10, 2003, 02:59:24 PM »
  10 clubs in the bag would create a new set of options for each pro.  More choices than choosing Titleist or Callaway or Maxfli.  For me, it would make the game more interesting to watch.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Finchem ready to step up to the plate?
« Reply #12 on: February 10, 2003, 03:16:20 PM »
Norby, I completely agree, but which organization will make that rule?  Why not have a world convention of golf ruling bodies, and form a more perfect union?  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

Slag_Bandoon

Re: Finchem ready to step up to the plate?
« Reply #13 on: February 10, 2003, 03:34:45 PM »
Dick, Good question.  I'd suspect that neither wants to lose their positions of tradition or powers.  If the R+A and USGA became one, who'd be the Czar?  I think the two party system works.  Sorry to leave out other orgs.  Maybe that's what we need ...  a Rogue Golf Organization that sees things differently. Does that Prairie Golf organization have a set of rules?

  Of the Big Two orgs, I would suspect that the R@A would be closer to the decision to 10 clubs (or less!) as I see it fits the GB and Irish cultures more. Are we Yanks perhaps too far softened by a retail paradise and conveniences?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Finchem ready to step up to the plate?
« Reply #14 on: February 10, 2003, 03:42:14 PM »
Geoff:

We can only hope that Finchem and the PGA Tour get it, but based on this story, I'd say that's highly unlikely: :'( :'(

------------
R&A, USGA keep cool under pressure

by James Achenbach of Golfweek

 
Let us welcome a new era of peace in golf.

Center stage at the U.S. Golf Association’s annual meeting, which ended Feb. 1 on Coronado Island off San Diego, was a distinct atmosphere of goodwill. The acrimonious COR War was over. Good riddance.

The conflict started in 1998, when the USGA declared war on so-called “hot” drivers. After the USGA Executive Committee voted in November of that year to impose a limit on COR, or coefficient of restitution, the Royal & Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews, Scotland, declined to join the good fight.

Thus the USGA campaign became a unilateral effort. Four years and some 200 nonconforming drivers later, golf’s two rulemaking bodies finally ended their division in 2002 by laying the groundwork for a joint driver policy. This policy, with a universal COR limit of .830, will take effect on Jan. 1, 2008.

COR is a synonym for spring-like effect, which is the same thing as trampoline effect, which is a graphic way of describing the collision between a super-thin titanium driver face and a modern golf ball. The ball, in essence, jumps off the driver face.

A ceiling of .830 on COR is fair. The game would be damaged by drivers that propelled the ball any farther. Recognizing this, it didn’t take long for the PGA European Tour and the Japan Golf Tour to join the PGA Tour in endorsing the .830 standard. These are the three most important pro tours in the world. Europe and Japan could have waited until 2008, but they didn’t. All around the globe, there is a new unity in golf.

All things considered, golfers are very lucky to have two ruling bodies that managed to keep their cool under extraordinarily taxing circumstances. The stakes were high, and so were the emotions. Yet the USGA and R&A were calm enough and intelligent enough to survive and ultimately end the four-year COR War.

The demeanor of David Fay, the USGA executive director, and Dick Rugge, the organization’s senior technical director, served as an indicator of the strength of the USGA. They were the two primary spokesmen for the U.S. side, and they never raised their voices in anger or gave up hope of an equitable solution.

What can be said of the R&A? This grand old club always seems to reflect a prudent historical perspective. Over the centuries, the sport has weathered all its conflicts and controversies, and the R&A understands this better than any other golf body.

Cynics (I among them) occasionally ridiculed the R&A during the COR crisis. This came as much from impatience as anything else. In the end, it was the R&A that made the most gracious move in the four-year saga. Speaking out for the worldwide unity of golf, the R&A agreed to adopt the USGA standard it previously had rejected.

This amounted to taking a bullet for the good of the game. It will be intriguing to see what happens when Martha Burk buys an airline ticket and heads to the British Open. This will be another test for the male-dominated R&A. More bullets will fly.

At least the R&A, which has never adopted any mandates for social equality, should be able to avoid the hypocrisy of the PGA Tour. Although it mumbles the creed of equality, the PGA Tour repeatedly has blown the opportunity to exert itself on social issues.

Under pressure to say the magic phrase -- “Women are equal” -- the PGA Tour should say it and enforce it. If this forces the Masters off the Tour schedule, so be it. The USGA already has made the commitment: No course without minority or female members will play host to a USGA championship.

Once before, in the case of minority participation, the PGA Tour failed to take a stand. Shame on the Tour, which refused to fully support Charlie Sifford, Pete Brown and friends, and shame on golf for not uttering a long time ago what should have been uttered: “Minorities are equal.” It took a 1961 lawsuit by the state of California to persuade the PGA of America, which ran the PGA Tour at the time, to end its exclusionary policies.

Golf in the United States cannot stand apart from the society in which it exists. Such an arrogant stance could easily result in self-destruction. Only the shortsighted fail to see where golf’s bullheadedness could lead.

A time will come in the future when golf will need all the friends it can get. With much of the planet likely to become embroiled in a struggle over decreasing fresh water supplies, golf will end up as a whipping boy for politicians and social activists. In a world without enough water, it is difficult to justify the saturation of golf courses every night.

This, of course, is not news to the R&A. Anyone traveling to the United Kingdom will see an abundance of golf courses covered with brown grass. Water is not for the wasting. Nobody complains. The great game still flourishes.

Now that the COR War is over, I am betting the R&A will be ready for Water Wars. And I am betting the USGA continues to embrace the harmony and wisdom that have emerged from the COR conflict.

Whatever important issues face golf, these two organizations surely will stand together. They need each other. The peace and unity on display at the USGA annual meeting will go a long way toward addressing significant concerns in the future.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

TEPaul

Re: Finchem ready to step up to the plate?
« Reply #15 on: February 10, 2003, 04:40:09 PM »
Ahhh, JamesA, what about the distance the ball is traveling these days? Did you know that was happening?

I'm happy to hear all these men in golf's regulatory bodies are of such good will toward each other and are so pleased the four year rift over COR is over and I'm really happy the world's tours are backing the 0.83 driver COR number but even with that did those men in San Diego who are having such a great time with each other happen to turn on the television and notice how far Ernie and Phil and the fellas on tour are pounding it despite the COR fix?

The ball JamesA. Tell them there's a problem with the ball and the distance the ball is going despite the fix on the "I" part of I&B. Tell them before they have too much fun with each other that there's a "B" part of this too!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Jim Sweeney

Re: Finchem ready to step up to the plate?
« Reply #16 on: February 10, 2003, 04:52:42 PM »
The tour could, within the rules, require a "slower" golf ball, or require 10 clubs instead of 14, or, for that matter, that everyone play hickoriesand gutties.

It won't happen. We all know why. The tour is run by/for its members, the players. In addition to their Hurculean game skills, they are skilled pitchmen. They get paid to sell equipment. It is inconceiveable that the companies that support the tour's lifeblood, the players, will stand for any such foolishness on the part of Mr. Finchem or anyone else. Nor will the players themselves, who make more from endorsements than tournament purses.

Although I like Tom Paul's idea, I'd have to ask, what would the manufacturers gain from participating in such an effort? And if they don't gain anything, what would be their reaction to the tour's participation? My guess is it would be negative. They have only one motivation- profit (and that's how it should be.)

Recent movements by the R&A (forming a new body only concerned with rulemaking) and the USGA (revising the ODS test protocol) are very encouraging. The Tour, the PGA, the regional asociations, and other "governing bodies" must openly, vocally support these efforts, but at arm's length.

We'd all be surprised by how often and how in depth the USGA consults with the other dominant golf bodies worldwide. Question is, if some manufacturer decides to "take on" the USGA with a big push to market non-conforming equipment, will those bodies, particuarly the Tour, the PGA, and their European counterparts, stand up for the game and their connection to the other 99.9% of golfers, and cut their financial umbilical cord? Or will they abandon the rest us and the game, take the money, and run?

I won't hold my breath waiting for the former.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tony Ristola

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Finchem ready to step up to the plate?
« Reply #17 on: February 10, 2003, 07:02:57 PM »
To save time and typing, here are a couple relevent threads:

Finchem on technology:
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/YaBB.cgi?board=GD1&action=display&num=1012205023&start=8

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tony Ristola

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Finchem ready to step up to the plate?
« Reply #18 on: February 10, 2003, 07:03:30 PM »
OK...one for now, started Jan 22, 02
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Finchem ready to step up to the plate?
« Reply #19 on: February 10, 2003, 07:26:54 PM »
"Although I like Tom Paul's idea, I'd have to ask, what would the manufacturers gain from participating in such an effort? And if they don't gain anything, what would be their reaction to the tour's participation? My guess is it would be negative. They have only one motivation- profit (and that's how it should be.)"

Jim;

That's a given. It would indeed be foolish for a convocation of the entities of golf with the participation of the manufacturers to ask the manufacturers to just take a beating. It's definitely a large issue but clearly even Finchem is beginning to understand that the future of the Tour and maybe the game itself is beginning to be jeopardized by what's starting to happen with this distance issue. I'm sure even some of these merged conglomerate manufacturing companies are capable of seeing beyond their next quarter or the end of the year and looking to the long term future of their companies and the future of the game.

My whole point, though, is that a convocation like this needs to discuss everyone's issues and not just to dictate to the manufacturers as some would like to see. How could you elicit a more negative reaction from them than that anyway? There's nothing wrong with sitting down to talk--believe me--and it's a lot better than what's going on with the manufacturers and the regulatory bodies right now.

Something like this would tremendously benefit the golfing public too, if only for something for them to see--in other words that some of the entities of golf are concerned.

You're right, though, the Tour's ties to the manufacturers through its players and their contracts is obvious. That's why the fact that Finchem is taking this position now is so interesting and potentially valuable to the USGA as an ally to do something here. They should not miss this opportunity.

The thing that would really disappointment me here with the USGA is if they just pass this off as nothing and view all this as no real problem assuming things will just go along as they  have in the past.

 

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tony Ristola

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Finchem ready to step up to the plate?
« Reply #20 on: February 11, 2003, 09:33:40 AM »
TEPaul:  Here we go ag'in, but I'll try to keep it short:  

Your stated:
"The thing that worries me the most is if the manufacturers begin to market nonconforming equipment (balls and impliments) and the public buys it. If that happens, the sky is the limit in technology and what we're talking about right now compared to what could be will be like looking at a hill compared to the Alps. Then there'll be no restraints at all on technology.

You want to talk about a danger to architecture that would be it."

That's no danger...no Alps and mole hill.

First, if someone wanted to use this stuff, let 'em.  They're not competing.  They're not, or shouldn't be, registering these rounds for handicaps and if they do...they're anti-sandbagging...let 'em...they're only hurting themselves.  If they ever do compete they'll be unprepared physically and psychologically.

If Joe Public wants to buy this stuff because it is more fun...let him.  I can't see many doing it and the proof...now more than a year later is the ERC...it's already extinct.  Most people want to play by the rules, and in a competition they'd be penalized or DQ'd if they didn't.

As for architecture:  No architect with a modicum of brain matter will consider the results of illegal equipment as the basis for their design decisions, and good players won't use the stuff because they want positive feedback...input from distance and trajectory control.  Perhaps for fun they'd tee up a ball from the good 'ol days for a laugh, but nothing more.  

I do think that women should still use what would be the current ball, hopefully known as the Old Ball...perhaps known as The Women's Ball (a great stigma to attach to it.) A ball that travels 10% further.  If a split occurs in the ball area, this should be the one.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »