[TomSteenstrup]

http://sports.espn.go.com/golf/story?id=1315638

Tuesday, January 22, 2002
Future may find PGA Tour as equipment regulator

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Press

 
The PGA Tour is not in the business of regulating equipment for its tournaments.

At least not yet.

Commissioner Tim Finchem is disturbed by the fact the United States Golf Association and the Royal & Ancient Golf Club took opposite sides over the debate on thin-faced drivers. The PGA Tour follows USGA guidelines, although thin-faced drivers are allowed overseas in the British Open, Ryder Cup and some World Golf Championship events.

Could the PGA Tour develop its own equipment standards? Yes. Does it want to? No.

"There are lots of reasons we should not be in that business," Finchem said. "At some point, we may have to make a determination that getting in that business ... the merits outweigh the concerns we have. We're a couple of years away from having to do that."

The latest debate is over the size of drivers.

The USGA angered manufacturers by proposing a 385 cubic centimeter limit. Three weeks later -- and just as Zevo Golf Co. prepared to file a lawsuit -- the USGA changed its proposal to 470cc.

Callaway Golf chief Ron Drapeau questioned how much thought or testing went into either proposal. Barney Adams, chairman of Adams Golf, was equally perplexed.

"This reversal is good for manufacturers, good for golfers, but illuminates the USGA as making arbitrary, nontechnical decisions with little understanding or concern for the golfer or the equipment manufacturers," Adams said. "And that concerns me."

Still on the horizon is a new test to measure how far golf balls can go.

Finchem agrees that distance must be curtailed, and says the tour would support any decision that puts a cap on the current length of equipment. He realizes it's not easy, that it must be done in such a way that allows companies to create products making golf more enjoyable for amateurs.

"It's important to have one set of equipment rules worldwide. We do not have that today," Finchem said. "It's important to have rules that draw the line in the sand on distance. We're hopeful those two things come to pass.

"If at some point it appears that they're not going to come to pass, we would have to re-evalutate whether we ought to become involved in equipment rulemaking.

"That's not something we want to do."
 

[TEPaul]

Here we go!!!

Tim Finchem on technology, Huh!!

How long have I been saying watch out for this occurence--about two years now on here and about eight years elsewhere! Wait 'til our archives come back up? This was obviously conjured up and floated at the original convocation of 2020 when most of the major golf entities got together in Florida two years ago and determined to double participation in the game by the year 2020!

I asked a participant in that convocation about the USGA's  positon in this and the future of their administration of the rules of the game (they sent only Judy Bell-not President Holland or Director Fay!) and was told that what golf needed was a CZAR--like in other sports! When I asked who that might be I was told---"How about Tim Finchem!!"

How many times have I tried to cite the frightening parallels between what appears to be happening to the USGA (and R&A) and what happened to tennis's USLTA (tennis counterpart to the USLTA about 35 years ago)? The USLTA made a series of missteps back then with the burgeoning professional entities of tennis and they got outflanked and cast into irrelevancy in just a couple of years and tennis caromed into the world of commercialism and professionalism in that same small increment of time!

For the last one hundred and some years golfers of the world (all of them) have basically played by one set of rules--those of the R&A and the USGA--both the playing rules and the Balls and Implements rules (many people don't even realize there are two separate sections of the rules of golf!).

My fear has always been that some other organization would challenge that and FACTIONALIZE the unified world or RULES! I've always hoped that would not be the TOUR or the PGA of America! Why? Because that's the beginning of the slide of golf's rules toward the world of professionalism and commercialism and the beginning of the demise of the amateur game--exactly as occured in tennis 35 years ago!

Finchem is a smart guy--he's a smooth and clever lawyer in fact! And in that statement where he says the Tour (or someone else--him?) might have to get into this "business" although he doesn't want to, he has used a word (and I'm sure he realizes it's implications) that is ominous for the future of golf and golf's rules--and that word is--"business"!!

The USGA (and the R&A) are non-profit organizations that are dedicatedly NOT in the business of "business"! In fact they never use the word "business"--ever! They are only there to protect the rules of golf--and with the voluntary compliance of golfers! If they can't do it, or won't do it, someone else will, and it is extremely unlikely that someone else will ever again be a non-profit organization!!

If golf's rules are ever controlled (even in a small way) by an organization, or organizations that are in the business of "business" or in any way connected to the manufacturers (except to negotiate with them for what is good for the preservation of the game), it seems clear to me that we can forget about golf the way we've always known it!

The USGA (and the R&A) have recently been called weak, out of touch, whatever, by a lot of people--and maybe they are,  but if they go down the tubes or are cast into irrelevancy with their administration of the rules and golfers compliance to those rules--and that very much includes the Balls and Impliments (B&I) portion of the rules, the game of golf will change, and probably dramatically!

You might not like the USGA, but if and when they lose this battle and are weakened to the point of irrelevancy you will miss them--at the very least you will miss what they were able to do for so many years because golf will never be able hold onto many of the great things about the game and the traditions of the game!

Ultimately, golf, it's rules and probably most everything else about it will revolve around what most every other sport revolves around--professionalism, commercialism--just money!!

It's too bad but in this world we live in, somehow, some way money always seems to win!!

I still think the USGA and the R&A can bring the entities of golf together somehow and hold on but time appears to be running out now--real fast!!

This kind of statement from a guy like Finchem is the strongest indication I've seen of that---by far!!

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Tom

As you know I haven't been around as long as you, on this space, in cyberspace or even space in general, but I do a little bit about tennis, and I'll reiterate my statements on this comparison of yours, that I made the last time this issue came up.

1.  Tennis is doing just fine, thank you
2.  The USTA (they dropped the "Lawn" bit in 1975) is alive and well.  They control the amateur game in the US.  They sit on the unified international rules making body (the ITF).  They are older than the USGA, and so the boys and girls in Far Hills should listen to them!
3.  That they understood before the USGA that sport does in fact live in a "world of commercialism and professionalism", and adapted accordingly, is to their credit, not their detriment.

PS--I looked up their B&I rules (ITF rules) and you would be pleased as punch to know that there are 3 separate specifications for balls, depending on the surface to be played on--hard, medium and soft!

Just think of the implications of this for golf.  Yet another dimension like the "maintenance meld" to throw into the equation.  One ball to be used in tournaments played on heavily watered and overly green courses--probably that 400 yard carry ball you keep talking about slyly.  Another ball for "average" conditions--the ProV1 will do here nicely.  A third ball for real firm and fast conditions--a ball that has enough rebound to carry fairway hazards at our classic courses, but is soft enough to be shaped and to allow for creativity in the short game--let's call it a "balata" just for convenience.

I call this whole concept the "ball/maintenance-meld meld."

I think this will please both the purists and the manufacturers.

Cheers

Rich

[TEPaul]

Rich:

I'm not a tennis player and never have been! But on this point--this analogy about what happened to the USLTA (I know they dropped the "L" (lawn) part of it and for obvious reasons) and what may happen to the USGA I strongly disagree with you--I almost can't tell you how strongly I disagree!

The reasons for the USLTA's decline are different in detail but the overall effect is the same as what the USGA faces now! Alhough I never was a tennis player my family is from Long Island, New York and their very close friends were the likes of Alistair Martin and William Clothier and all other men who ran the USLTA and I saw them go through it! We saw them a lot and we saw what they were going through. These were not men to admit mistakes lightly but they did and actually both of those mentioned are still alive and they very much do admit that an enormous miscalcutation as to the future of the USLTA and amateur tennis was involved and they were part of that miscalculation!

I spoke just the other day to Bill Voight, another world class player of that time about this and he agreed that there is no doubt about what happened--and that tennis changed very rapidly because of it!

I know you were a tennis player, Rich, but maybe you came along a bit later and saw only the vestiges! These were the people involved in it directly and if they say what they do I'm inclined to believe them--again, it is all something they are certainly not very proud of!

To me the odd one today is actually the R&A! They are in many ways sort of an anachronism! They are not even involved in some of the necessary areas of golf that will insure their future! The USGA isn't as much as they should be either, but they are far more than the R&A!

I really do admire many of the things these two organizations have done for the game up to now! They understand the game's heritage and its tradition--they look back to it and view it fondly and help us to do that too to a large degree. What they don't seem very good at is looking into the future and figuring out ways of takening many of the good things about golf into the future!

Maybe it's too much to ask good preservationists to be good futurists too--maybe it's almost impossible--everything I'm watching recently would seem to indicate so!

[TomSteenstrup]

I find it interesting that Finchem is saying these things. They don't really have an interest in affecting technology either way, do they? What is their angle? I assume the Tour makes a lot of money from equipment companies. Why would he be interested in picking a fight with them?

Could it be that he is doing sort of a favor for the USGA by testing the waters and warning the companies that change is coming, whether they like it or not? The companies can't sue the Tour for making requirements for equipment, can they? By stating that the Tour might implement new restrictions, could he be laying the ground work for a USGA/R&A based decision for all of golf?

Tom

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Tom P

Maybe I've forgotten the analogy youwere trying to make.  To me the overriding thing which changed tennis, which was in the mid-60's, exactly the time I was playing the sport adn very much following it, was Open tennis.  Prior to this phenomenon, high level tennis consisted of a two tier system.  8 or the top 10 or so men's players (e.g. Laver, Kramer, Gonzales, Rosewall) were playing professionals and had their own travelling circus which played in high school arenas around the world for chump change.  Everybody else was an "amateur" and played for the main trophies, Wimbledon, US Open, etc. and played on a circuit which included the old line clubs, e.g. Longwood, Newport, Orange, Merion, Eastbourne, etc.  The top "amateurs" received compensation in various forms to allow them to live pretty good lives, even the lower level ones, or "tennis bums."  Once tennis became open, this cycle was broken and the people who ran the old clubs lost a lot of power over the game.  IN the US, we adapted, adn maintained our status as a top tennis playing naiton.  In the UK, the old line clubs refused to give up control, and England, which was a very strong playing nation in the 50s, 60, and 70s began a long and steep decline that has only now just begun to be reversed.

Equipment changes, which happened about the same time, for completely unrelated reasons, had far less of an impact on the game.

Tom S

One of the interesting things in the Finchem article is how that financial behemoth "Zevo" seems to have cowered the people in Far Hills into backing down from their recent head size pronouncement.  I think Finchem is just a fairly smart and savvy guy who has a business to run and wants to stop the inmates from running the asylum.

[TEPaul]

TomS:

Finchem heads an organization of a few hundred "independent contractors" who make a great deal of money representing all the equipment manufacturers--for huge sums of contract money!

I hardly think Finchem would want to jeopradize that by pissing off the manufacturers--and I hardly think he would last very long as the Tour's Commissioner if he did!

I really can't imagine either that this is some agreement with the USGA and R&A to run interference for them and prepare a way for them to negotiate some settlement with the manufacturers to control balls and impliments either! Of course Finchem might say something should be done about this but what is that? If he represents or administers the rules of golf as Golf's Czar or the Tour's rules of golf we have someone almost naturally connected to the manufacturers--and logically the manufacturers will be just where they want to be!

If he simply tries to set a separate set of rules for the Tour then we have different rules for different players and the beginning of factionalism within the rules for the first time in golf's history!

Apparently some don't think different rules are a bad idea at all! To me it's the beginning of factionalism in golf and its rules and a very unhealthy atmosphere certainly for the USGA and R&A and probably for all of us including golf generally!

If the USGA agreed to a "competition ball" that's another matter and at least the rules would still be within their purview. Two sets of rules is not really something they want to do! One set of rules has worked fine for many years. So why would they want another set of rules? Why does anyone want another set of rules now? In my opinion, only because the ruling bodies that have controlled this issue from the beginning can't control these manufacturers now and agreeing to that is sort of a last stand!

I don't think the manufacturers would be likely to agree to a "competition ball" at this time administered by the USGA anyway! They view the USGA as a pain in their asses right now and would not be in the slightest bit upset if they didn't exist.

Finchem and his "business" oriented organization would be much more likely to work with them and allow them to produce whatever they want to! And if he didn't they would be more than ready to sue him and the Tour too--are you kidding about that?

[John_McMillan]

I don't see how the PGA tour could ever become an impartial enforcer of technology limits.  The PGA tour is a union to promote the interest of its members - professional golfers - who are in turn paid endorsement contracts from the equipment manufacturers.  How one could ever disentangle those relationships in an impartial way is beyond my vision.

[Tony Ristola]

I think this is a good first step...a fine salvo fired over the heads of the USGA and R&A.  That dance with the driver size was like the Clinton administration making hollow threats, and symbolic gestures.  It's dangerous as credibility gets eroded quickly and the governing bodies begin to look like they can get kicked around.  Hopefully the major golf publications pick Finchem's comments up and run articles on it.

One thing I think Finchem is off the mark with is the following statement... "He realizes it's not easy, that it must be done in such a way that allows companies to create products making golf more enjoyable for amateurs."

Golfers at all levels have benefited from great developments in equipment.  Oversized Ti drivers and fairway woods have made this part of the game easier.  Go back and put a 1950's Tommy Armour Driver (the driver of choice of tournament professionals until the mid-late 1980's) or the Burner Plus with a Flex-Twist shaft (considered great technology until 1992) next to the long shafted, light weight Big Brutals we use today.  Irons too.  In the early 1980's it was the Wilson Staff irons with the split heel as the clubs of choice, and the game improvement clubs PING Eye 2's weren't hot until 1985-86.  Those old sticks look and played like fire pokers and butter knives compared to what is produced today.  

I think the USGA and R&A should focus on the overall distance of the ball and set standards for spring like effect.  Does head size really matter...does it make the ball go further or does it make the game easier for the average Joe?  

Hats off to Mr. Finchem for coming out publicly (I wonder what his backroom conversations with the USGA have been like for him to make this statement publicly...perhaps he came up against a stone wall, confused ruling body, or simply weak on the issue (you'd think he'd had some contact with the USGA first being a experienced politician).

I'd say MR. Finchem's actions were one very important step forward.

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

John

Major League Baseball, the NBA, etc. seem to manage these isues quite seamlessly.  Can you see Barry Bonds trying to force MLB to let him play an aluminum bat, or Michael Jordan force the NBA to let him play with a stickier ball so he can palm it better?

If I were Finchem I would be crying out for some grownup to be in charge of these issues, and if nobody rose from the current cast of characters, as seems to be the case, I'd do what I could to take some control.

[TEPaul]

Rich:

It doesn't appear you've forgotten my analogy at all. It appears that you're only concentrating on open tennis and maybe expecting that open golf too is just the thing for us and the rules of golf, amateurism and the future of the golf, very much including the future of its architecture!

What happened to tennis and the USLTA was the burgeoning professional organizations, Donald Dell and all that and your right very much the two tier system! It actually happened slightly later than it happened in golf with their burgeoning professional organizations. But through that the USGA and the R&A were able to totally maintain their unified grip on the rules of golf and the USLTA or USTA, or whatever they're called today was not!

You're talking primarily about a couple of scores of early tennis players who were professional and the remainder of good players who were "tennis bums". I have no idea either how amateur tennis in the clubs or whatever was played back then or now. Tennis may not have had the need for the type of rules and regs overseeing the game that golf has always had. And tennis that I know of has certainly never had a complex handicapping system on the order of golf's, that is very necessary to the game!

But the USLTA may have had some B&I limitations since tennis today is hardly played in the same way that it was back then. What happened to the strategic rallies that were so much fun to watch? I think you can answer that as we all can--it's a serve and volley today until the smoke clears! Surfaces may have something to do with that too as does today's tennis equipment. The way the tennis professionals hit the ball today compared to back then would probably be somewhat akin to Tiger hitting his driver 500yds! But maybe you wouldn't mind seeing that shortly down the road, and all in the name of what? Open golf?

We're talking not just the survival of the USGA and the R&A for their own sakes, we talking controlling golf equipment into the future to protect the way the game has been played and its architecture too. At least I thought we were!

My analogy is basically that whatever the differences were with what happened to tennis back then the similarities with what the USGA is going through now to what happened to the ruling body of tennis are remarkably alike.

And I for one believe that when it comes to balls and impliments rules in golf they very well may be far more necessary and complex to the game of golf than tennis's balls and impliment rules were to tennis. For that I can only give you the vast differences between a golf course and a tennis court.

[TEPaul]

Well, I give up on this issue with you guys! Handing the rules and regulations of golf equipment to Tim Finchem is really no different than handing the rules and regs to the manufacturers themselves!

Matter of fact, we should just skip a layer here or skip the unnecessary step of handing it to Finchem and just hand the whole thing to the manufacturers themselves.

Let everyone have their fun as Eli proposed; who cares about equipment controls when out to have fun? Who cares about the distance the ball goes? Let it go as far as unfettered technology will take it!

When this happens it will be a sad day for golf and most definitely for it architecture.

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Tom

The effect of technology in tennis was not to give serve and volleyers a greater advantage, but rather exactly the opposite!  Connors and Borg and Lendl showed how bigger racquets and new techniques (the 2-handed stroke) could be used to make the return of serve an offensive weapon--perfected now by Agassi et. al.  Tennis is harder to follow now for the casual observer (just like basketball), but it is anything but dull!

Cheer up!

Rich

[Tony Ristola]

TEPaul:  Nobody is handing the rules to Finchem.  He's actually begging the USGA to get their S--- together before it's too late.  He wants to identify the best golfers (when Tiger is out of the field).

Right now the game is fast becoming a joke...look at Torrey Pines...look at Harbour Town, once considered a short and crafty course (at 6,645) is now 7,000 yards.  It's short compared with Torrey.  7,000 yards as short and crafty?

Finchem wants rules the manufacturers will follow, and I don't believe golfers have so much extra cash to buy both illegal and legal equipment.  I also don't believe anyone gets satisfaction playing a game when they are knowingly cheating, and the law abiding golfers won't suffer at the hands of these people.  You wouldn't, I wouldn't.  There is over 400 years of integrity in this game...it's been passed from generation to generation...I don't see this changing.

I'm on the other end of the spectrum than you...obviously.  This is the day many of us have been waiting for...for someone in a position of authority to come out and say "enough is enough already, it's time for the "defenders" in Far Hills to wake up and smell the coffee."  Perhaps it was a public kick in the groin, but the USGA should have acted on this long ago.  Maybe it's the only thing they understand.

[TEPaul]

TonyR:

I really can't believe you're saying that and believing it too! Why would Finchem be so interested in controlling the distance the ball goes all of a sudden? Why would he be any more interested than the manufacturers seem to be? Why would he be any more interested than a man like Callaway? Why did Callaway have to manufacture and market a golf club in complete contradiction to the USGA's rules? Why did he do that? Obviously to make more money. This is no different. If the manufacturers control the rules (or the manufacturers control the rules through some obvious surrogate like Finchem) what's to prevent them from doing anything at all to make money--like Callaway tried to do? Do they really care how far the golf ball goes if they can make money out of it? Have you been noticing the recent ads for Titleist and Nike in that regard? Does that sound like anything remotely close to thinking about controlling distance, protecting the game or the integrity of its golf architecture?

If Finchem or these manufacturers through him do control the rules and produce equipment that has no real distance limitations and tell the golfing public that that's just fine because these are the new rules and why should anyone care how the hell far the ball goes, what do you think the golfing public is going to say? Is that going to make anyone feel like a cheater?

Finchem needs those manufacturers! His whole organization is completely connected to them through his Tour players.

If I ever saw a fox entering a henhouse--this is it!!

[TEPaul]

Rich:

I'm sorry my friend but I don't agree with you at all about this! Not one iota! If you think tennis is more interesting now than it used to be then I'm happy for you, but I sure don't.

The speed these top players hit a tennis ball today is no different than watching a long hitting golfer hit a ball 500yds now or in the future!

I'd just as soon go to the county fair and watch somebody try to ring the bell--that's about how interesting it is! And I would even rather go watch them hit the ball 500yds in some farm field than to watch them do it on the classic golf courses of the world or any course for that matter--that' s just too depressing to me.

But maybe you might enjoy seeing a long hitter do it at Merion or Pine Valley or some of the old greats. That's not for me, and that's what it will come to!

Just let Finchem take over golf's rules and watch for yourself!

Have you forgotten about the subject of distance and what it may do to golf architecture?

[Tony Ristola]

TEPaul:  I do believe it.  The PGA Tour has nothing to gain...only identifying the best golfer that week and to prevent courses from being over-run...as Mr. Finchem states, he doesn't want to take unilateral action.  He's looking for leadership from those who should be leading.

I believe (you'd have to ask him though) that he believes the game is out of control with all the technical improvements combined.  You can't take Titanium, graphite, greensmowers as fairway mowers and the like and eliminate them, but you can control the ball.  You can make new rules about the ball to bring the game back to reality...as I have posted before...THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE!  The R&A grandfathered out the small ball in the late 1970's.  PING's Eye 2's with oversize box grooves were also grandfathered out of existence.

Mr. Finchem is more interested than the manufacturers because the manufacturers have something at stake...not a monopoly, but serious market share, millions in potential profit and millions in investments.  Callaway's ball has yet to make a profit...I believe it has lost tens of millions trying to grab market share (would have to reread their financials).  

For manufacturers to have the ball rolled back to 1980's technology (Titliest 384) would introduce all manner of competitors.  This would drive prices down in a big way...with Titliest and others losing big bucks.  The ball would become a commodity...and a very cheap one.  THAT IS WHAT SCARES THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS OUT OF COMPANIES LIKE TITLIEST AND CALLAWAY.  Loss of enormous market share, loss of profit.  Loss of leadership.

If the USGA lost the case in court (where it would inevitably head) then the USGA's rules on the books would stand as is.  They USGA wouldn't be disbanded.

One other point...by Mr. Finchem's words, the USGA has someone on their side of the fence.  If a court case came and the PGA Tour supported the USGA ball changes, isn't it likely BOTH would be dragged into court?

I think this statement is a weak one: "Finchem needs those manufacturers! His whole organization is completely connected to them through his Tour players."

Tour players could get major bucks from a whole host of industries...from Pizza, beer, investment groups, auto manufacturers, golf course developments...and I could continue with this until the sun went down and only touched a portion of the potential.  To think the pro's are dependent on equipment manufacturers for promo bread isn't reality.  

I'd say the USGA (and R&A) by behaving erraticaly, weakly, slowly (or not at all) and inconsistently have brought this upon themselves.  They should be defending but they're not.  

The courts will take care of the challenges if the USGA decides to move forward for the good of the game.  What we need is for the USGA to find their spines and their voices.

But up to now you summerized it well TEPaul...the USGA are a bunch of chickens, hiding in the henhouse at Far Hills.  

[John_McMillan]

Rich -

The different technologies in baseball or basketball are much smaller compared to golf.  There's not that much different manufacturers can do to the basketballs to change their performance.  However, the logos on the equipment have caused problems that are not "seamless."  The University of Michigan has an equipment contract with Nike.  They recently hired Tommy Amaker as their head basketball coach - and Amaker has a contract with Fila.  A clause in Amaker's Fila contract is that if he changes jobs (the contract was negotiated when Amaker was head coach at Seton Hall), he has to use his best efforts to use Fila at his new job.  Apparently, at U of M, this involved the following discussion - Amaker, "I have a contract with Fila," U of M "we have one with Nike," Amaker "ok."  Fila has filed lawsuit against Amaker and U of M for breach of their contract with Amaker.  

Put differently, do you expect manufacturers NOT to ask their players to intervene or lobby on behalf of a manufacturer's equipment which is on the border of technological acceptance?  (In answering this, please include references to Arnold Palmer and Callaway).

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Tom

Let's agree to disagree about tennis.  To me it's still a fanstastic sport, requring tremendous athletic talent, and the fact that it is played at a much higher and more skillful level of proficiency than it was 20, or 30 or 40 years ago is natural, and fine by me.  Same with basketball.  Same with baseball.  Same with football.  Same with golf.

I also don't see what's in it for Finchem to try to hijack the rules process just to screw up the game.  Maybe I'm not being cynical enough. :-/

[Tony Ristola]

John:  Your question was directed at Rich, but I'd like to take a shot at it.

The manufacturers could ask their players to make a stink, but the USGA is the court of golf.  They write the law and interpret it...Balls & Implements testing (see the USGA site for non-conforming drivers)  I don't think a body responsible for protecting the integrity of the game would care about what a paid professional thought, not if they have solid values, just as the courts won't care what John Walker Lindh's father or mother say on the court steps.  

Has the ERC perverted the game beyond distortion?  No?  The problem created was due to the USGA and R&A behaving inconsistently.

[Tony Ristola]

TEPaul:  a further note...I was out beating balls yesterday and when I eventually got around to my hitting my Biggest Brutal I was consistently flying the target green at 260 yards with an almost imperceptible tailwind using Spalding Super Range balls (measured by laser).  Does the V1 go further...I don't know but I'd think it'd go as far.  I told my buddy that 6 years ago with my Burner Plus that would have been an absolutely nutted drive with carry and roll.  My technique is better, but TEPaul, the game ain't the same...not even close.

What has the USGA done about this?  Zero.

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

John

Of course manufacturers and players contracted to them will lobby.  Any rules making body should listen to them, and then make a decision which is in the best interests ofthe game.  It's called leadership.

Rich

[TEPaul]

Tony:

We've been over almost all of this issue before and for a long time. There is really no more to add and our positions on these points are listed and clear! I disagree with you on the way you interpret almost all of this although very ironically despite almost total disagreement on how to achieve the goal of sanity for the game we appear in total agreement that sanity is needed now!

Everything you say about the manufacturers, Finchem and maybe even the position of the Tour players I disagree with.

I don't think you even understand what the USGA and the R&A really are when it comes to their balls and impliments rules and regs. They are very definitely not the law!! Laws always have some kind of enforcement power or enforcement ability and the USGA and R&A have none at all!! None!! All they have behind them and their rules and regs is the hope that the golfing public will follow those rules and regs! That's it!

Finchem is very unlikely to say he DOES want to act unilaterally at this point! That would be quite a surprise wouldn't it? I think he's positioning himself for what he sees coming!

You say there's nothing in this for him or his organization, nothing that you can see for him to gain? He's in business isn't he? I think you can bet whatever you like that he will damn well find something to gain! And that to me is likely to be one helluva a sweetheart deal with the manufacturers to set rules and regs in golf wherever they feel like setting them!

The hell with architecture, the hell with the traditions of the game! This is money talking and if you can make some product that the public THINKS will go farther great! Better yet if you can make some product that the public KNOWS will go farther! That  would be the new world of rules and regs with Finchem, his Tour and the manufacturers! And don't forget what one of the true visceral seductions is to golf--distance!!

Of course Finchem doesn't want to get sued! If he did what would he defend his organization with? The Tour players pension fund? They'd be real happy about that, wouldn't they?

I don't think he has any intention of combining on this issue with the USGA. I think he'd be happy to take the whole issue over himself and let the manufacturers do whatever they wanted to with the new rules and regs.

Again, maybe it is time for the USGA to just roll things back! Draw a line in the sand to a lesser distance and give the manufacturers plenty of time to get their production lines in order--just like the R&A did with the small ball years ago!

And if they did that and the manufacturers came after them in court what are they going to come after them for? The fact that they just don't like the new rules? Of course not! They'll  come after them because they'll claim that what the USGA has done constitutes restraint of trade somehow. That's probably the only thing the manufacturers would ever take the USGA to court for! It's probably the only thing a judge would allow them into court for! And the USGA is never going to take anyone to court for abridging their B&I equipment rules and regs. Again, they can't because neither they or their B&I rules are the law!!

A smart lawyer can simply rise and say; "Your Honor, the USGA has given the manufacturers as much time as they asked for and how can the USGA restrain trade when the trade itself is solely up to the golfer, the consumer, to decide for himself or not to comply with the USGA's equipment standards!

So why doesn't the USGA just get on with it and do that right now? Because, contrary to what you think about the golfing public and their willingness to follow the USGA's rules I don't think that's the way the public will react. If at that point the manufacturers say the hell with the USGA's rules, we're going to just produce nonconforming equipment, the public will likely buy it!

This is probably where the root of our disagreement lies. You think the public will follow the the USGA, and I don't! They may follow them a bit at first but it won't take long for them to abandon the USGA's ship and eventually buy whatever the manufacturers are selling and most particularly with the lure of unfettered distance dangling in front of their faces! And even more particularly if the golfing public has a new guy in town like Finchem who says; "Don't worry about that old stuffy USGA and their hangup on tradition and distance, we have a whole new set of rules for you and the manufacturers will just let you determine that on your own any time you feel like it!"

And eventually the USGA will be out of the rules area! So call them chickens, spineless, weak, whatever you want, but I think you will rue the day a guy like Finchem gets involved in the rules--because what they'll be replaced with will be self-interest and business--all about money!

You think I'm defending what the USGA is doing now, I believe! I'm not! Maybe you want me to agree they are wasting time and acting spineless when they could be acting here. Ok, I agree, but how I think they should work this out and how you do is apparently very different.

You think they should just lay down the law and it would be just that simple. I wish I thought so too and then we would definitely agree. But I don't think it's that simple! And I really don't trust what I'm hearing from Finchem either. All these entities would probably just like to see the USGA and the R&A get out of this area and then others could run it and nobody would be around to tell them that anything other than business is what really matters.

[TEPaul]

Tony:

Again, you and most on here are really just asking what the USGA has done about this and some are saying, not much or even zero!

I'm not disagreeing with you on what they've done or haven't done. I'm disagreeing with you on the way they can go about doing something about this! And there is no way I think that something includes having a guy like Tim Finchem getting into the "business" of equipment rules regulation, as he says!

Of course the USGA needs Tim Finchem's support! They need the PGA of America's support. They need the public's support. They need the support of everyone! And they even very much need the support of these goddamned manufacturers!

Heretofore they have always had that support! So what's changed? Have they gotten more spineless or have others gotten far more aggressive? If Finchem is so worried about distance why doesn't he propose rolling distance back to 250 yds? Why doesn't he propose rolling it back to anything? Why don't the manufacturers propose rolling distance back if they have all this sophisticated testing equipment and if they care about the future of the game? Where is the public on this issue? Have you heard their outcry that things have gone too far? I haven't heard it. Maybe a little on here but not that much more!

If everybody as you say wants to play by both rules (playing and B&I) why aren't they saying so? Why have these manufacturers been pushing the USGA's rules and regs to the limit and probably beyond in the last few years? Why don't they back off? Where was Finchem when Callaway and Palmer were pushing for the USGA to back off and accomodate nonconforming equipment? Where was everyone? Why is everyone always complaining about the USGA? Why doesn't someone identify and complain about the people who are pushing them to back off on their rules and accomodate greater distance?

And now not just Callaway but the other manufacturers seem absolutely poised to try the same thing that Callaway and Palmer did. If the USGA backs down and accomodates them I think they will say "so be it" for a time and then they'll be back to the same old aggressive tactics again. And if the USGA doesn't backdown or even draws a line in the sand, I think they're all about ready to say; "So what?"

Everyone seems to have gotten so disrespectful of the USGA's B&I rules I really wonder if the manufacturers would even bother to sue them at this point! Why waste the money?

So where is all this support for them to get tough and draw a line in the sand? I haven't seen much of it. I've heard a lot more clatter about them just being weak chickens than I have real support!

[RJ_Daley]

I can't really ad anything new to the discussion.  However, I'd like to cast my vote for Tony Ristola's points of view as most appealing to me.

I think the issue on how to procede would be simple to most astute politicians or Machiavellian types.  When it comes to effective leadership, governace, and power, "use it or loose it"!    

I think the USGA (hopefully with R&A finally on-board) should declare standards and specifications that are breathtaking and reduced from the current status, and fight the good fight in the certain to be filed court case.  If they loose, we would have to go to TE Paul's nightmare scenario and let the tour decide if they have to open the second front by issuing rules controling their show to the chagrin of the independent contractors with manufacturer contracts that it represents; not so much for the good of the game in total, but for the good of their show, that the show doesn't become that long drive contest in a farm field as was aptly pointed out above.  I think what Finchem is saying to USGA is - do this so that our show doesn't become one dimensional and boring and we loose spectators to the boring drive and pitch monotony on courses that are obsoleted at any currently built distances, even 7500yards.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()