First of all there're two sets of rules in golf, written and monitored by two non-profit organiztions world-wide--The USGA and the R&A, both strictly amateur organizations. The two sets of rules are the playing rules and the I&B rules and regulations (balls and equipment specifications) that deal only with equipment and balls.

The reason it's that way is because that's the way golf evolved. As far as I know there basically are no amateur organizations monitoring and controlling the equipment of baseball, hockey, football et al or hardly even tennis anymore.

The equipment and ball situation in golf seems somewhat unique anyway as there's always been such a wide variety of different balls and equipment as well as manufacturers of same. I don't know that any other sport has had such a situation.

That situation has led over the decades to rather intense business competition amongst manufacturers and this is never an atmosphere that's easily controlled by any organization much less strictly amateur ones.

Compliance with the USGA's I&B rules and regulations rests on one thing alone---voluntarism! If manufacturers, professional tours and the amateur golfer does not wish to comply with the USGA I&B rules and regulations they don't have to and there's nothing the USGA can do about it with the exception of their own thirteen tournaments.

The USGA does face an atmosphere of potential litigation if they were to legislate I&B rules arbitarily even though it's clear that their power rests solely on voluntarism. This type of litigation would generally be framed in the context of restraint of trade (arbitrarily restraining trade). This is why the USGA provides the manufacturers with a good deal of what's known as a "review and comment period" to its I&B rules and regulations and balls and equipment specifications. These are basically the realities of "lead-time" and voluntary compliance. These realities are also very likely why the USGA recent improved ball test known as "optimization" may have been dropped by the USGA--it was clear the manufacturers were not prepared to accept that test procedure.

The USGA and the R&A could legislate to roll the distance back on the ball to whatever degree they saw fit but they would of course run the risk that the manufacturers and the consumers of their balls and equipment, including the tours, would not follow them and use what in effect would be nonconforming (to their I&B rules) balls and equipment.

At that point the USGA and R&A would begin (and probably very quickly) to devolve into irrelevancy in that area. It appears the USGA and the R&A at the present time are existing in this particular area in what even some within those organizations refer to as a "paper tiger" mode.

Again, it cannot be stressed heavily enough that these two amateur organizations depend in this area on voluntary compliance from all--manufacturers and consumers alike. Without that they just can't survive in that area no matter how anyone tries to rationalize that they can! Commercialism just isn't easy to co-exist with in this context--never was and its getting increasingly difficult.

The PGA Tour and other tours around the world could get into this area (with a little skirting of existing legal strictures) but the thinking is why do they want to put themselves on the firing line of potential litigation when they don't have to?

My basic recommended solution to all this is for those two amateur organiztions--the USGA and the R&A to call together a massive public convocation of all the entities of golf--the manufacturers, the tours, amateur interests, golf course architects, and other interested parties, put this distance issue on the table and discuss it simply for a better long range understanding by all of the future health and prosperity of the entire game of golf.

If they don't do that the game may slip away caused by this increasing distance problem little by little. But if they do it they may succeed in getting better control on distance through renewed adherence and voluntary compliance to stricter and distance rolled back I&B rules and regulations.

In a way this is sort of like a western movie where the old sheriff is being put upon by some tough new guys in town. He can let those tough new guys push him and the towns folk around or he can try to negoitiate with them. Or he can attempt to organize those towns folk to support him and it'll probably all come down to just going out to the OK Corral, drawing the guns and having it out.

If the old sherrif and the towns folk get cut down at least they went down with their guns blazing and standing up for what they believe in. If they cut down the tough guys they'll get their town back to the way they want it. Or perhaps they'll all never go out to the OK Corral to have it out and the town will continue to evolve down a path of---well you know.

Corny--but unfortunately probably very true!  

The USGA has been dogged by many, wondering why they won't do anything about the impact of the technology on golf equipment and the golf ball to maintain integrity in the game of golf.

Mike:

They have done something.  A lot in fact.  Max length of driver, max clubhead size, all the ball stuff (weight, size, initial velocity).  You just don't like/agree with what they've done.

I tend to agree with rgkeller, despite TEP's statements of "fact" from the perspective of the USGA.

Let's just do a little imagining.  What if the USGA made a statement tomorrow to the effect of:

"The game we love and have responsiblity for (in the USA) is getting out of control, and we are modifying our B&I rules to solve this problem.  As of today, the following golf balls, previously deemed to be 'conforming' are no longer conforming (followed by list of the obvious subjects...).  Also as of today, the following equipment is deemed to be non-conforming (another list....).

We recognize that many golfers may wish to use these non-conforming balls and equipment in their friendly games, and as far as we are concerned they can do so to their heart's content.  However, golfers will not be able to post scores for USGA-sanctioned handicapping purposes if using non-conforming balls or equipment, and may not use such balls or equipment in any USGA sponsored competition."

If this were to happen, what could Titleist (say) do, and more importantly what would they do?

Well, sure they could sue the USGA for restraint of trade or breach of promise or terrorism or whatever, if they wanted to.  They might even win any such a suit over time.  But, what would they win?  Some part of the USGA's war chest?  Sure, after paying most of any settlement to their lawyers.  But, then what?  Some sort of chaos would reign, and who might be held to blame by the media and the golfing public aka their customers!?  Surely, not those nice gentlemen and ladies in Far Hills (and St. Andrews) who were just trying to uphold the principles and spirit of the game of golf!?  And, would the people from Far Hills and St. Andrews just fade away, to be replaced by shills for Wally Uihlein?  No, those blue and other coloured blazer people would rise like Phoenixes from the ashes and go on sipping their gins and tonics and making up the rules of golf for their championships, just as they have for hundreds of years.  If Tiger won't play in the Open if he can't use his Nike Plutonium rescue club, so be it.  You think Tiger's gonna stay away?  Think again.

AS far as I'm concerned, the 80-pound weakling in this whole sorry affair is/are the equipment manufacturers.  I think if the USGA showed just the hint of a cojone or two (and gave the B&I boys some sort of face-saving "out"), they'd fall in line like dominos.

I could be wrong, but what does Far Hills have to lose except a bunch of money sitting in the bank?

It's just a game, fellas, isn;t it?

I too tend to agree with rgkeller. But for different reasons.

I think that the USGA would likely prevail againsit anti-trust claims. (The Ping "square groove" litigation had other stuff going on that made it a different situation. Besides, the USGA didn't lose that case, though they did settle.) And I think the USGA knows that it would prevail.

My guess is that the real reason the USGA is so silent about B&I issues is because, once adressed, the spectre of rules bifurcation is just over the next hill.

Bob

 

I don't see that I'm offering any apologia for the USGA. I would be offering an apologia if I'd recommended that they do nothing more than what they've been doing and what it seems they'll continue to do which is to not necessarily consider a roll back on distance.

For those of you who aren't completely familiar with the USGA's apparent position on distance as we speak it's basically that they're drawing a line in the sand right here and that they do not expect that technology can possibly take this any farther distance-wise from here without the manufacturers simply deciding to not conform to their present I&B rules--and of course the public buying non-conforming equipment.

But I'm not recommending they continue to sit on their hands. I'm recommending they really do bring all the entities of golf together, create an enormous convocation, make it completely public, actually attempt to bring public opinion out on the issue and determine where golf needs to be now and in the future. At a convocation such as that there's no reason at all the USGA and R&A wouldn't recommend a rollback in distance.

If the sentiment is there amongst golfers to roll distance back and the manufacturers dig in their heels contrary to public opinion and the recommendation of the USGA what does that leave the manufacturers looking like? I'd think it's pretty obvious that it leaves them looking like just a bunch of money hungry people bad guys who really don't care about the integrity and future of the game, it's architecture etc.

That to me is simply a way for the USGA to bring this issue out on the public table first before going through the courts, handicap posting problems, potential loss of relevance etc! On the other hand if they just rollback the balls distance specs  now without something like a public convocation first they probably will follow a scenario that Rich just outlined of getting sued, possibly descending into the ashes and hopefully, and I do mean hopefully, rising at some point like the phoenix Rich said they might.

I just think my recommendation gets it all on the table first so we don't have to all sink into the ashes and hopefully reemerge. And I don't care what Rich says about the health of amateur tennis today--it's just not like it once was before the old USLTA completely bungled their time at the crossroads about forty years ago and basically just descended into complete irrelvance. If Rich thinks golf's amateur organizations (USGA & R&A) should follow the example of tennis's organization some decades ago then I could not possibly disagree more. If that happened, golf as we've always know it will be no more!

No matter how weak the USGA may seem to be to legislate at this point I just don't want to see the same thing happen to them as happened to tennis and I doubt any of you will either.

I want to see this result in a distance roll back as most of you seem to, at least for those that do need to be rolled back--my recommendation is probably just one of trying to accomplish the same end with a less potentially castosrophic method.

"I'd be further surprised if, given the alternative, at least 1/2 of all people who play golf (I'm being careful to not necessarily put them all in the category of "golfers") would use any and all "illegal" equipment, if it were available in normal outlets."

Rich:

That prospect is exactly the reason it would seem better to me if the USGA at least tried at this point to bring all the entities of golf together in a public way in the manner of a convocation to attempt to bring an understanding of what needs to be done distance-wise now and in the future.

Do you realize the danger if they did as you suggested from post #5

""The game we love and have responsiblity for (in the USA) is getting out of control, and we are modifying our B&I rules to solve this problem.  As of today, the following golf balls, previously deemed to be 'conforming' are no longer conforming (followed by list of the obvious subjects...).  Also as of today, the following equipment is deemed to be non-conforming (another list....)."

You go on to say that the likely scenario to that instant legislation would include this;

"Some sort of chaos would reign, and who might be held to blame by the media and the golfing public aka their customers!?  Surely, not those nice gentlemen and ladies in Far Hills (and St. Andrews) who were just trying to uphold the principles and spirit of the game of golf!?  And, would the people from Far Hills and St. Andrews just fade away, to be replaced by shills for Wally Uihlein?  No, those blue and other coloured blazer people would rise like Phoenixes from the ashes and go on sipping their gins and tonics and making up the rules of golf for their championships, just as they have for hundreds of years.  If Tiger won't play in the Open if he can't use his Nike Plutonium rescue club, so be it.  You think Tiger's gonna stay away?  Think again.

AS far as I'm concerned, the 80-pound weakling in this whole sorry affair is/are the equipment manufacturers.  I think if the USGA showed just the hint of a cojone or two (and gave the B&I boys some sort of face-saving "out"), they'd fall in line like dominos."

Why in the hell put us all through that? Particularly when you say (again);

"AS far as I'm concerned, the 80-pound weakling in this whole sorry affair is/are the equipment manufacturers."

And then (to repeat and requote again) you say this in another post;

"I'd be further surprised if, given the alternative, at least 1/2 of all people who play golf (I'm being careful to not necessarily put them all in the category of "golfers") would use any and all "illegal" equipment, if it were available in normal outlets."

Do you see how contradictory those statements are? If the situation of balls and equipment actually devolved to such and extent that the manufacturers were to make and market that amount of "illegal" equipment and approximately 1/2 of all golfer bought it and used it in contravention of what you recommend are the USGA's new roll backed I&B ball specs how on earth do you imagine that the USGA will rise again like some kind of phoenix?

Or are you saying you really don't care if they shrink back to such a state of irrelevancy that all they really would monitor or control is simply their 13 tournaments?

That's a brilliant solution Rich--basically they'd be just about back to where they started about 110 years ago--so would we all.

But that's not all. The R&A in an I&B context would probably be back to just one tournament and that's about all they'd control. In an I&B context they would've lost control of the rest of the world. It probably wouldn't be long after that that both of them would be irrelevant in the context of the playing rules too.

Your sort of innate iconoclasm and inclination to criticize organizational structure the way you are by saying such things as;

"those blue and other coloured blazer people would rise like Phoenixes from the ashes and go on sipping their gins and tonics and making up the rules of golf for their championships, just as they have for hundreds of years."

is pretty remarkable--something I really feel is completely  short-sighted if not just basically pathetic.

If you think the USGA is is falling asleep on this issue you should certainly know if you have eyes and ears that the R&A has been positively comatose on this issue for years!

Furthermore if the USGA were to adopt that immediate roll-back legislation you recommended would you really expect the R&A to go along with it?

I spoke with a R&A board member not long ago and asked him about the distance problem. He said;

"Yes, We've heard that some people are concerned about that!"

You know what W.C. Fields said:

"When the world comes to an end go to Philadelphia because it's about 30 years behind times."

When the world finally gets around to coming to an end in Philadelphia I'm coming to Scotland because some of those over there in organizational golf anyway are a lot farther behind than that!  

 

Bob

You "accuse" me of being all sorts of things, none of which I wan't to get into, since many of them may be true.....

All I was really trying to be in my hypotehtical, however, was a Pollyanna.  I personally think thatif the USGA and R&A called the bluff of the B&I manufacturers, the latter would eventually back down, because IMVHO they need the legitimacy of The Rules far more than the keepers of The Rules need any particular B&I technology.

Under my scenario, the bifurcation which already exists would just be more clear.  In the short term, there would be people who played golf by the rules (including the pros) and people who did not.  In the long term, the latter would migrate back to the former for the same reason that very few if any people actually use the "hot" balls whcih already exist today.   Al lof this is why I think that the Rules guys will come out just fine and dandy in the end, and will be happily sipping their G&T's long after John Cleese has made his last commercial for Titleist.

But, of course, I could be wrong.......

Rich -

My apologies if you took my post as accusing you of anything. I don't think I did nor was it my intent. We agree, basically.  

Yes, I think the manufacturers would back down. First, because they would look bad suing (for the reasons you gave), and second, because there is every chance - in my opinion - that they would lose. And I think they know that.

This sabre-rattling between the oems and the USGA is in many ways a silly kabuki dance. It hides the real issues.

Bob

My understanding is that square grooves had actually been legal for years, probably even before PING existed. The PING/USGA suit was over the fact that PING began to "radius" their groves on the EYE2 iron and consequently where the measurment between grooves was measured from. "Radiusing" grooves has nothing to do with whether a golf club has square grooves or "V" grooves. The USGA claimed that PING was inside the allowable limit between grooves and PING disagreed. It was basically an issue of how or where to measure from. Why did PING "radius" their grooves? My understanding is because the PING Eye2 iron's grooves at the face were too sharp and were stripping paint off the ball so they radiused them to solve that problem.

Why did the USGA settle the suit basically "grandfathering" the PING Eye2 irons. Thinking at the time was the USGA felt it probably didn't have the money to pursue the suit as Karsten might have. Why did the USGA deem the EYE2 nonconforming and just let the solution to stripping paint off the ball go if there was no other playable consequence as some believed? Apparently that's still a good question.

Incidentally there was a simultaneous suit on the same issue between PING and the PGA Tour. I believe that was also settled with a provision at the behest of Karsten that if the PGA Tour ever wanted to get into I&B rules and regulations themselves in the future they'd first have to get permission to do so from a special committee that was set up specifically for that purpose. That committee still exists.

I believe that very committee would be an excellent candidate to be brought in to mediate amongst all entities of golf to solve and resolve this distance issue in a large and public convocation. The entities should included the two I&B organizational bodies (USGA and R&A) and all the world's professional tours, representatives of all regional amateur organizations, all the manufacturers and of course the golf architect organizations of the world.

 I'd be surprised if 5% of all games of golf are played strictly within the rules.  I'd be further surprised if, given the alternative, at least 1/2 of all people who play golf (I'm being careful to not necessarily put them all in the category of "golfers") would use any and all "illegal" equipment, if it were available in normal outlets.

Rich-- I have litigated that very issue in the Federal Courts of the United States and the findings of the court, after testimony, disagrees with you--

With the exception of less than 7% of the buying public of golf equipment, golfers will not buy non-conforming equipment (and perhaps, even if conforming, close to 80% will only buy equipment which they do see used on the Tour).

Those who sell and advertize the sale of "non-conforimg" balls and implements (even including regular outlets which carried ERCs and advertised as non-conforming) will tell you its a very, very small nitch market--

Thanks, Dennis

If it is true that "close to 80% will only buy equipment which they do see used on the Tour)", would not a "competition ball" be a roaring success, even if it "cost" the average player 25 yards (which I very much suspect it would not)?

PS--my reference to less than 5% of golfers playing by the rules was relating to the rules Rules (e.g. mulligans, gimmies, preferred lies, asking and receiving advice, etc.) and not to the B&I rules.

PPS--why on earth would you be litigating golfers' buying preferences in the Federal Courts?  I'm sure there is a simple reason, I just can't think of it!

To Dennis's point about the public's lack of appetite for non-conforming equipment - I was surprised a couple of years ago when the illegal Callaway driver sold so poorly. I had expected it to fly off the shelves. It turned out to be a marketing disaster. That is not what I had expected. People won't buy non-conforming stuff, apparently.

Doug -

An 18 handicapper in not going to be happy about shortening his tee ball so that the pro's can play the US Open at Merion again. In fact, I think the great unwashed will be mucho p.o.'ed.

And that is the heart of the bifurcation issue and why it is such a hard one for the USGA.

The change in the UK ball was a different breed of cat. There the R&A was acceding to a common international ball standard.

OTOH, rolling back distance in the name of some abstract principle like "preserving the shot values of Golden Age courses" is going to be a very, very hard sell. The average golfer won't like it. Even a little bit. And the USGA knows it.

Bob