Finchem on technology

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Let us not forget that Mr. Finchem has a very strong vested interest in CONTROLLING technology.  It is called the Stadium Course.  It sits within a lofted 5 iron from his offices.  He holds a tournament on it each year for which he has lofty ambitions.  It CANNOT be stretched much past its current Merion-like length.

Can the USGA and R&A, whose constituents (golfers) clamor year after year like a group of Viagra-starved pensioners for more and more length and have proven their willingness to fork out enromous sums for such even though the evidence strongly suggets that virtually all technology introduced over the past 25 years has been a placebo, claim any vested interest other than just "being there?"

[TEPaul]

RJ:

I like your post! Don't get me wrong I am far from saying what the USGA is doing now is the right way to go.

I for one think and have said many times on here that they should and should have brought all the entities of golf together and said to them--"do you want to protect the future of this game by doing something about controlling distance or don't you"? And then recommending to all those entities what they should do and asking them what they need to get on board!  

In the process of doing that they should also put the golf architecture of the world and its future front and center in this convocation! Go through all of the negatives of not doing something about ever increasing distance--cost, obsoleting courses, creating boredom and maybe losing interest in the game that way etc, etc.

They should do that and frankly they should have been in Florida at this 2020 convocation two years ago singing that song as loud as screeching owls in front of all golf entities that were there instead of almost not showing up at all.

In that vein, I could not agree more with TonyR that they are not using their heads and excercising their responsibility as effectively as they can and should!

I just don't want to see the USGA go out of existence one of these days by getting overrun by the manufacturers--I think that would be very bad for golf particularly as those that would replace them like a Finchem probably have less interest in doing something about the distance problem than they do!

Rich:

Can the USGA and R&A claim any vested interest other than "being there"? Being where??

If Finchem has the slightest interest in controlling distance I hope it's more than just the TPC Sawgrass and his office a good five iron away. If that was his primary motivation I would not put it past him to sell TPC in a New York minute for a far large sweetheart deal bankrolled by Ray Knight or at the very least to move his office and its window over to the other side of his office building!

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Tom

Is that the same Ray Knight who played for the Mets and married Nancy Lopez?  I'd give Fireball Roberts a better chance of outfoxing Finchem and ole' Fireball is deid!  As for "being there" see the Peter Sellers movie of the same name.

Cheers

Rich

[John_McMillan]

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...

The premise of the post is that the PGA tour would take over the rule-making (as it relates to equipment) role of the USGA.  In that case, you have the same party acting as the defense attorney, and as the judge and jury - and that is not a formula for good action.

[RJ_Daley]

Tom, If ever they have that convocation, I hope you have a seat at the roundtable!  I can't think of anyone who has had more to say about all this over the years than you  

[TEPaul]

No Rich, then I don't know what the guy's name is--Ray Knight, Roy Knight, maybe Don or Rich Knight maybe even Fireball Knight, maybe it isn't even Knight. Whatever his name is, he runs Nike. I'm more than certain Tim Finchem knows him very well, maybe even better today than he did yesterday.

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

It's Phil Knight of Nike fame.  Do you think that the guys running the USGA and R&A don't or shouldn't know him too?  If so, why not?  Are they corruptable too?

[TEPaul]

John MacMillan:

Thanks very much--you're seeing what I'm trying to say here!

The USGA is not the Court of golf although they might have written rules and regs that golfers have followed willingly for a very long time but their rules are anything but Law, never have been, never will be and were never intended to be! They are just rules and regs for controlling equipment that they thought best for the game--and apparently others did too even including the equipment manufacturers (until recently).

Not even in the USGA's most arrogant moment would anyone connected to them have told you they were the Court of golf and that their B&I rules were the LAW!

Maybe like General Patton or some of the stuff the IRS wants us to think they can do to us they were hoping that people would see their power as greater than it is, but the Court and the Law of golf they do know that they ain't!

[George Pazin]

His name is Phil Knight.

Let me say up front that I HOPE if Tim Finchem does decide to start taking a leadership role on technology related issues, that he does the right thing & starts reining things in a bit.

What I expect, however, is entirely different. I really don't think the Tour is interested in slowing things down at all. I think if you look at course setup in particular, it seems that they are catering to length, rather than "Tiger-proofing," as any changes are often called. This is the only reasonable conclusion, other than that they are stupid in how they are attempting to defend courses from the onslaught of longer players. I think they see that the Tour has never been stronger in terms of visibility & money, and, perhaps rightly, have geared their marketing to emphasize this - ie. "These guys are good." I think most casual viewers, even ones who are avid golfers, are simply in awe of the length these guys have - I don't think they're tuning in to see creative shotmaking or incredible short games.

The solution to all this is tough - I think the USGA needs an effective spokesperson to explain cogently how classic courses are indeed being altered (it's not simply the joke stated in Titleist ads) & current new courses are requiring more & more land, more $$$ to build & more time to play - this all adds up to more cost for the average golfer. If one wants to truly grow the game, it can really only be done at the low end, not the high end - most current golfers already have enough $$$ to play as much as they want; there simply aren't enough people with money who aren't already playing to provide any significant growth.

I HOPE Tim Finchem does the right thing, but I'm not holding my breath.

[TEPaul]

Rich:

Appears you and I are on different wave-lengths again--are you back in your transcending mode?

Phil, Phil Knight, of course, how could I forget? I knew it was easier to remember than Glenn "Fireball"!

Do the USGA and R&A guys know Phil? Yeah, they probably know him. Why would you ask if the blue jackets were corruptable?

Maybe when they get together they all sit around and talk about what a neat and cool idea it would be to do something about how far the golf ball is going these days!

It looks to me like Phil might have told them that he would rather wait on that 'til next year though. Have you seen Nike's new ball ad?

"381 yards!! Mr Ball meet Mr Duval!!"

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Tom

The crude "corruptable" comment was only in response to your post which implied that Finchem might sell his soul for some of Ray (sic) Knight's money.  I don't know Finchem or anybody in power at the USGA or R&A and withdraw any implications anyone might have taken from my joke.  As for the new Nike ad, haven't seen it, but it sounds funny enough and just goes to prove that Barnum's adage about suckers births and minutes still applies.

Cheers

Rich

[JohnV]

It won't be Phil Knight's money, but it might be the golfers who are paid by him that would swing Finchem.  Imagine if Tiger and David say we want to play this new hot club that the USGA says is against the rules or we're going to Europe.

I believe that as long as the PGA Tour sticks with the USGA, the general public here will.  If the USGA rolls back the ball , the club pros support that move and the PGA Tour plays that ball, we'll be ok.  A large number of golfers will go along with the USGA, more want to have a valid handicap, and another large number want to play what the pros play.  Between them, I believe they consititute the majority of avid golfers in America.  I'm not really worried about what some guy who plays 3 or 4 times a year does.

What would be scary is if a new organization came up with their own handicap system and clubs started to use it in stead of the USGA Handicap system.  As long as people are tied to handicaps that the USGA provides/approves and the clubs enforce the policy of not allowing rounds to be posted if not played with "legal" equipment, we should be ok.  But, if you combined that with the PGA Tour moving away from the USGA you'd really have a problem.

[Tony Ristola]

TEPaul:
This following statement of yours has me baffled.  Let me take a shot at it though eventhough I may be misinterpreting it entirely.

"What do you disagree with concerning the manufacturers, Finchem and maybe even the position of the Tour players I disagree with."

1.  The manufacturers do not want the ball shortened because they would lose substantial market share.  If they could outlaw pond balls they would.  

2.  Finchem, is the first man (aside from Jack) with authority to finally say something significant about the game being out of control.  The ball is the controllable (sic?) element.  He does not want to act unilaterally...paraphrasing his words.

3.  Tour players can get sponsor deals from the entire free market, and the American free market is huge and impressive.  Golf is a "clean" sport, it's attractive.  That's why the PGA Tour plays for $1 million plus per week, why there's a Senior Tour, an LPGA Tour, Hooters Tour, etc., etc.  Club manufacturers do not have the deepest pockets...Titliest and a couple other manufacturers are rethinking their trade show involvement...booths cost them from $1 million to $2.5 million(Figures from the latest PGA show in Orlando this weekend).  This is peanuts for some companies (I wouldn't suggest asking Enron or Arthur Anderson though).

You said: "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!!"

Well TEPaul I disagree, otherwise they could never have grandfathered the small ball and the PING Eye2's out of existence.  They couldn't have illegal clubs and balls on the books.  They could never have ruled on "spring like effect."  If they're so powerless today, let's fold up their tent now.  Seriously.  They're useless and sucking millions of dollars from clubs across the country, money which could go to better uses.  TEPaul you sound scared stiff.  I wonder if this is the mentality in Far Hills.  

You said:  "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!"

It did look like Finchem screwed Greg Norman on the World Tour affair, so like Clinton he lost credibility, but this is a different situation...one affecting the entire world of golf, not just the PGA Tours.  I don't think the PGA Tour wants the responsibility of running amateur golf in America, and to be seen as running the game into the ground or being perceived as making a power grab which would reach the front pages of every major golf publication across the globe...and perhaps a few dozen newspapers across the country.

You said: "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."

They're not restraining trade TEPaul, they're just setting a new line in the sand to defend the integrity of the game.  The manufacturers can still sell balls.  Nobody is trying to stop them from selling balls, even illegal balls.  

You said:  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!

The solution to that is simple.  Spend some advertising money...USGA, PGA, PGA Tour and have Nicklaus, Tiger, Norman, Palmer, Sorenstam, Faldo, Lopez, etc. explain why this is happening.  Leadership makes a big difference and a lack of it costs big time...look at Clinton and what the costs are when there's no leadership...when there's pandering...style over substance.  You eventually get kicked around.  That's more dangerous than taking a stand which is DEFENDABLE.

yOUR WORDS:  "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."  

The USGA and R&A rules are respected at every tournament by every club in the world.  I don't know of one tournament I've played in in 25 years of professional and amateur golf where the club created a new set of rules (aside from a local rule or two...which is normal and acceptable conduct.)

I'll support the USGA 100% when they do something.  To date they have done nothing.  Zero, zip, nada, nix.  I'm waiting for them to give me something I can support with gusto.

[John_McMillan]

1.  The manufacturers do not want the ball shortened because they would lose substantial market share

Market shares must, by definition, always sum to one.  Thus, at an industry level, they can never be gained or lost.  What can be potentially lost is profit margin - it's harder to charge $48 a dozen for a ProV1 if one can't make great claims for its performance over other balls.  I don't know enough detail about the economics of golf equipment, but I would guess  that as a line item, the ProV1 is not the big $$ profit generator for Titelist.  I do think that the economic impact on equipment companies of technology limitation has been overstated.

[Tony Ristola]

John:  I hope I understand you correctly.  "Sum of one"...this means the economic pie is fixed?

The economic pie is not fixed...if so, then the US economy would be the same today as 25 years ago, or the same per capita as 25 yeas ago, an impossibility.  It expands or contracts and market share by any given company in any given industry is gained and lost within the expansion or contracton.  A company's market share may shrink and still create greater revenue than the year before if the entire market grows significantly...and vice versa.

It's not just the ProV1, but all balls.  If the overall distance is rolled back today's technology will be obsolete, and you can bet there will be Asian ball manufacturers pumping out balls which get right up the the to the limit of the new performance standards...and will be cheaper to buy.  That dozen balls will cost half or less (a guess, but realistic by looking at what shops are dumping balata balls for).  Titliest and the lot will lose profit per ball and market share.  THAT WOULD BE FRIGHTENING IN ANY BUSNESS.

 


Market shares must, by definition, always sum to one.  Thus, at an industry level, they can never be gained or lost.  What can be potentially lost is profit margin - it's harder to charge $48 a dozen for a ProV1 if one can't make great claims for its performance over other balls.  I don't know enough detail about the economics of golf equipment, but I would guess  that as a line item, the ProV1 is not the big $$ profit generator for Titelist.  I do think that the economic impact on equipment companies of technology limitation has been overstated.

[John_McMillan]

Tony -

There are several points in your reply - and I'm not sure I understand any of them.

Yes, market SHARES sum to one - it's a definition.  Shares, however, are a concept distinct from the size of the pie.  That the size of the pie expands or contracts is irrelevant for the fact that Titelist can never have 60% of the market, if Callaway has 55%.

Technology is important to companies in trying to move the sale of one golf ball from one company to the other (Titleist will tell you that their engineers are more clever than Callaway's, which is why you should buy thier ball instead).  I am not sold on the idea that technolgy increases the size of the pie (total number of golf balls sold) - which I think has to be driven more by the number of golfers and number of rounds played.  Maybe more people are taking up the game because of the ProV1, and the ERC driver - but I'd need a lot of convincing.

At an industry level, if the number of golf ball sales is determined by factors outside the industry, then the other driver of profit is the price charged per golf ball.  ProV1's sell for a significant price premium - and it's due to their perception of increased technology - but I don't think they're the primary profit driver for Titelist.  

As far as the arguments about Asian competition - I'm completely lost.  However, if the plank that the techology argument rests on is the need to support domestic industry, then it's an argument I can quickly discard.

[TEPaul]

Tony:

Sorry, but we obviously look at this entire issue in a very different light. You're post is just too many questions to answer again. My positions on these things is clear on here and have been stated over and over again. If you think otherwise that's just the way it is; I'm sure many see this in vastly different ways.

The only question of yours I'll answer again is your ideas about the power of the USGA--the "Law" you seem to think they have on their side and with their B&I rules and the way you describe them as the "Court of Golf". That simply is not so, Tony, they'd never tell you that! They would never have said such a thing in their entire 100 year existence! It is simply not the way their non-profit voluntary organization works no matter how much you'd like to believe otherwise. Noone who knows anything about the USGA or the R&A would agree with that!

You mentioned how could the small ball have been "grandfathered"? It was because the manufacturers who made the small ball agreed to it and nothing more! If the manufacturers of the small ball had chosen not to do so there wasn't one damn thing the R&A could have done about it!

You ask how the USGA could have "grandfathered" the Ping Eye2 out of existence? They could do that too because Ping agreed to it in a court settlement--the suit Ping brought against the USGA, by the way. If Ping had chosen not to do so there isn't a thing the USGA could have done about it. To my knowledge neither the USGA nor the R&A has ever brought a suit against a manufacturer. If they have a problem with a manufacturer's equipment they might deem it nonconforming and that's the end of that for them--at least until THEY get sued!

You ask how they could have ruled on "spring-like effect"? What so hard to understand about that? The USGA has been ruling on equipment issues for many years and in almost every case the manufacturer has gone along with them!

In the case of "spring-like effect" most of the manufacturers went along with them but Callaway did not and then we got into this mess about a major manufacturer publicly deciding not to comply with the USGA's rules and regulations for the first time in history--that's a major manufacturer now. What did the USGA do about that? Did they take Callaway to court to force them to comply with their rules an regulations--their "law" as you say? Of course they didn't and they never will simply because they can't! Their rules and regs are not a law, Tony, no matter how much you want to believe they are or they should be!

Now maybe you can understand what voluntary compliance is all about! It's not a law. The USGA has enjoyed voluntary compliance from everyone, including the golfing public, the other entities of golf like the Tours and even the manufacturers not because any of them have to, but only because they wanted to, only because THEY chose to. That's what support was and still is!

I'm just not too sure that everyone wants to do that anymore, but you seem somehow sure everyone does and if they don't then you seem sure there is something the USGA can do about it legally. I think not.

As far as the USGA bringing all the powers together like Nicklaus, Tiger, and whoever else has influence in golf like the Tours or even the manufacturers, I could not agree with you more and if you look back at my posts today that's exactly what I think they should do. I've only been saying that on here for about two years now.

[Tony Ristola]

John:  Let me try again.

At the end of the year the market is indeed 1, or 100% and companies have a respective portion of that pie, but the market is not the same from year to year.  For example:  The internet grows daily.  Having a smaller share in a larger market can be more profitable than having a larger share of a smaller market even with higher prices pe unit...(the beginning)

Improving technology and or services is important in gaining or maintaining market share in every business...that's competition.  If the technology is rolled back to a previous and significantly lower level, there is no advantage...it's eliminated, it's old technology.  Hence, competitors can enter the market using old patented technology (patents last for 17 years) and be at the limit of the new limiting standards.  

I do think balls are a huge part of the Titliest profit makeup, much more than clubs, bags, hats and other soft goods.  You don't use 5 year-old balls, but clubs...my irons are 6 years old and I don't contemplate a change for about 20 years.  Balls are recycleable for only a short period (a year?), clubs last for years, even decades.

Why would Asian companies get into the ball business...for the same reason they manufacture a ton of clubs for the U.S. market...serious money.  

Consider the following NGF statistics. My comments are in brackets:

Since 1986 the number of golfers has increased 34%, from 19.9 million to 26.7 million. (that's a big increase in market)

Since 1986, the number of women playing golf has risen 11% -- from 4.6 to 5.1 million. (another big increase...have a niche product to sell? I'd take 2% of that market alone...in a heartbeat)

The number of golf courses in the U.S. has increased 28% since 1986, from 13,353 to 17,108 courses.

Since 1986, overall golfer spending in the U.S. on fees and equipment has grown from $7.8 to $22.2 billion.  (What's that for growth in 16 years...300%...not too bad...see the pie does expand, it's not fixed)

The Growth of U.S. Golf 1970-2000

Golfers spent $22.2 billion in 1999 on equipment and fees.
They spent $16.3 billion on green fees and dues in 1999, which accounted for 73% of all spending and $2.5 billion on golf club purchases (11% of the total).
 
Avid golfers (25+ rounds annually) make up the smallest player segment (25%), but accounted for 53% of all golf-related spending in 1999.

John:  I'd say the Asian market would be drooling over a rollback of the ball.  They'd eventually flood the market using those old proven patents which are legal and would perform to the limit of the rules.

[John_McMillan]

Tony -

It was your post which said that market SHARE was an important economic reason for not limiting technology in golf.  Arguments about expanding the pie restate the argument - which is good for you, since you couldn't win it on its original statement.

I think I understand now your argument about Asian companies - but it's goofy.  First of all, as a golf consumer, I don't care whether my golf ball is manufactured in the US or in Japan.  Why I should tailor the rules of golf to skew that mix is even more confusing to me.  As a point of fact, though, it's just wrong.  Industries with stagnant technologies are characterized by less entry - not more; and stable market shares - not varying ones.  How many ways are there to make a potato chip?  Don't take on Frito-Lay.  How many ways are there to mix carbonated water and syrup?  Don't take on Coke or Pepsi.  It's the opposite case - where technology limits would be blown wide open, not closed - where entry and competition from foreign and other companies would be greater.

[Tony Ristola]

TEPaul:  This is exhausting, but now we're getting to the marrow of the matter.  I don't recall asking any questions...just posting opinion...rebuttle.

The Rules are the law.  

I've never implied the USGA would sue for compliance...why, if a manufucturer wants to produce illegal equipment...let them...it's their business...it's their money...it's their risk.  

Either equipment conforms or it doesn't.  Callaway or Company "X" sue because they think the rules/laws are insane, unrealistic, or harmful to their business and are willing to anything to defend it.  If a manufacturer deems the USGA and R&A insane or unrealistic, then the manufacturers could call them to court.  Like Casey Martin did.  In each instance I've provided manufacturers have eventually conformed to The Law.  The New LAW!  If they want to challenge the validity of Golf's legislative body (Law Makers) and Golf Court (Laws) they can go to a real court of law.  It's their right, always has been, and always will be in a free society.  There's no getting around it.

I can't foresee anarchy on the links like you can.  The tradition is too strong.  The game would cease to exist and that would be a detriment for the manufacturers themselves.  I think you're seeing boogiemen where they don't exist.  Are there that many cheaters in your region to give you pause like this?

You said; "As far as the USGA bringing all the powers together like Nicklaus, Tiger, and whoever else has influence in golf like the Tours or even the manufacturers, I could not agree with you more and if you look back at my posts today that's exactly what I think they should do. I've only been saying that on here for about two years now."

Well, TEPaul, the USGA would still have to LAY DOWN THE LAW...(ps. are we right back where we started? ugh.  )

[Tony Ristola]

John:  I should have said losing money per unit, but they would lose market share as well.  My opinion of course.

Well, John I'll agree...it doesn't matter where the balls come from, but look at the mass of Asian clubs in the market today.  20 years ago they had little foothold in the market,  Mizuno was a new brand here and components were almost unheard of... today I'd say they've taken a nice healthy bite out of the market.

Have you ever heard of generic products (drugs and foods)?  They eat more and more out of the major brands business with every passing year...the same would occur with golf balls.  They'd be just as good and their manufacturing costs per unit would be less (including shipping costs.)

Coke has a unique product and is in a unique situation...uncomprable...you can't taste a golf ball.

[Tony Ristola]

Thought the following thread should be linked to this one...Nicklaus on Sandbelt courses and the ball.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/YaBB.cgi?board=GD1&action=display&num=1012295747

We've got Nicklaus, Finchem (PGA Tour), the ASGCA asking taking a stand on the ball issue.  All we need now is the PGA of of America, and finally the USGA-R&A and we'd have a United Front.  

We're 3/5ths there already.

 :oChaaaaarge!

[TEPaul]

Tony, you really are funny! I realize that you want the USGA to get tough and do something about the distance problem by reanalyzing their Balls and Impliments rules and regulations or enforcing the ones they have more stringently by possibly deeming more balls or impliments as nonconforming or drawing some lines in the sand. So would I!

But I don't think you're going to get anyone, certainly not the equipment manufacturers, to worry about violating a law of the USGA's and thereby be dragged into "Golf's Court of Law" to explain themselves for violating a USGA "law".

As to the USGA's enforcement ability with their B&I rules and regs the only enforcement mechanism available to them is to disqualify a golfer who uses nonconforming equipment in one of the USGA's thirteen tournaments. Other than that the entirety of the USGA's rules and regs are in the realm of voluntary compliance, not law.

If a manufacturer feels the USGA's rules and regs are insane or unrealistic they really don't haul the USGA into court to get the judge to decide if the USGA's rules and regs are insane or unrealistic period; they bring the USGA to court claiming the USGA's rules and regs have somehow violated a "real law"! Like the US law which makes "restraint of trade" a legal violation!

If a manufacturer brought the USGA to a local, state or Federal court and said to the judge we have no problem with the USGA other than we think the USGA's rules and regs or insane or unrealistic, the judge, any judge would tell them to get the F... out of here and if you want to make some kind of claim come back and make a real one that involves a real local, state or Federal law!

The same thing applies if anyone, including a manufacturer, wants to challenge the validity of golf's US amateur regulatory (legislative?) body (the USGA) in a real court of law, as you said.

Again, the judge would say to the claimant; "You want to challenge the validity of the USGA, an amateur non-profit organization of a game whose equipment rules and regs are purely voluntary? Then I suggest you get the F...out of my court, Pal and simply try not complying with their rules and regs and see what they can do about it and what will happen to you! And I'll tell you right now, Pal, not a damn thing will happen to you!"

That's just the way it is Tony! The USGA's rules and regs are not a law on the books in any local, state or Federal jurisdiction, they're just the rules and regs involving the equipment of a game and if someone, or a manufacturer doesn't like them their recourse is to not comply with them!

And actually this is the very reason that if a manufacturer does drag the USGA into court claiming that the USGA's rules and regs are arbitrary or something of that ilk, and therefore that constitutes "restraint of trade" (a violation of US law) or the violation of some other law, then I believe the USGA should logically win the case by claiming that their rules and regs are merely for a game and the decision to comply with them for anyone is purely voluntary and therefore the USGA really has no ability to restrain anyone's trade or violate a US law! That should win it for the USGA.

Of course, if the USGA started claiming publicly that a Callaway, Titleist or Nike are a bunch of cheaters and lowlifes for producing and selling nonconforming equipment, then they very well might be dragged into court for violating restraint of trade laws or some other law like defamation! But you will notice they have always been very careful not to do something like that!

But if I ever do get to present a proposal of any kind to them maybe I should ask them that since their purview with the game is basically national, if they would mind if I went to my local US Congressman and asked him to submit a federal bill requiring a law making it illegal to sell or use nonconforming equipment in golf.

That way if the USGA, or any of us, found anyone selling or using nonconforming equipment we could drag them into court and see if we could get them fined or thrown in jail! Then the USGA's B&I rules will be a "law" with some enforcement power, and then the USGA and all the rest of us who feel strongly about the distance problem can really kick some butt!

[Tony Ristola]

TEPaul:

1.  If the USGA is not enforcing their Balls and Implements rules stringently and to the maximum of THEIR LAWS, the USGA is in huge, huge trouble.  This would indicate an uneven playing field.  They'd get sued in a heart beat and deservedly so.  

2.  Here we go ag'in.  I thought I was clear on this.  The manufacturers can do what they want.  Can manufacture what they want.  Advertise what they want.  Sell what they want.  If it is non-conforming that court WILL BE FOUND AT THE TOURNAMENTS THEMSELVES.  Either the starter, the marker, the referee or even a spectator will tell competitor "X" he is in violation of the rules.  If he competitor gets caught after hitting his first tee shot he will be penalized accordingly (with extra shots added to the score in stroke play or loss of hole(s) in match play)  So says the USGA Rules (laws).

This does not only apply only to the 13 USGA tournaments but ALL clubs and tournaments playing by USGA rules.  Yes it is voluntary, but I have yet to see a club or any professional tournament knowingly allow illegal equipment.  So strong is the tradition of following rules in this Royal & Ancient game.

3.  Either the USGA can set the rules or they cannot.  If the court were to rule otherwise, the existing rules would stand and we would continue with the production of 7,600 yard championship courses.

The Casey Martin case was about disability.  The NBA and NFL have their own rules, including salary caps (now talk about restraint of free trade!!!).  This is to protect their respective games.  Rookies have a cap on how much they can earn, and doesn't this restriction continue for a couple or few years?  The USGA, should they rule on the ball would also be protecting the game, but not restraining free trade.  Manufacturers can sell whatever they want.  It's their risk (and their shareholders in publicly owned companies).

I know I'd have Nicklaus on the stand for the defense, and would use his statements in Australia... see link above... that there are only 20 real championship courses today and that something should have been done 20 years ago.  (I'd also bring up his other comments on this as well as some pointed questions to illustrate the direction the game has gone in his 40 years of professional golf an how we can achieve control of the situation and why we should.)

TEPaul:  the USGA has the moral high-ground.  Ball concerns hit development, integrity of the game, and costs of developing the game.


4.  Restrain of trade.  See point 2 and point 3.  (They can sell anything they want...conforming or non-conforming.)  

5.  Every rule is arbitrary.  14 clubs.  Ball size.  Ball weight.  Grip form.  etc.  The USGA either has the right to make rules to protect the integrity of the game or they do not.  Either they can upgrade rules to defend the game or they cannot.

6.  I can't think the USGA would spend any effort getting personal...they can't be that thick, and that surely would result in a day in court.  

The USGA will only test manufacturers equipment and tell them if it conforms or not...in written form.  That's their job.  Getting personal is one sure way to illustrate to the public you have no case.  It's the Clinton strategy...personalize and destroy...they did it to Ken Starr for doing his job, the House Travel Office staff,  Kathleen Wiley, Jennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, an agent in the White House who'd written a book about their disgusting behavior, and they actually started with Ms. Lewinsky, but that darn blue dress showed up...and a host of other people.  

7.  Congressional involvement "to submit a federal bill requiring a law making it illegal to sell or use nonconforming equipment in golf."  That's crazy.  I have said and will continue to say, manufacturers can create whatever they want.  It is their money.  It is their risk.  It is their business.  If the equipment doesn't conform to USGA rules (laws), it cannot be used in tournaments using USGA rules.

Also, anyone is free to use anything in casual play.  To say or do otherwise is un-American, and that most certainly would be RESTRAINT OF FREE TRADE.

[Tony Ristola]

TEPaul:  Just had lunch with a retired lawyer and explained the situation, being sure to not take or prejudice any side of the argument to ensure a fair response, not that it would have mattered with this individual.

His first words before I started were, I'm not an anti-trust lawyer...(but with decades in service and having followed society and law I respect his opinion...the guy has the lawerly knack (second nature) of cutting to the core. His response:

It is not a restraint of free trade so long as the USGA is not making rules ALONG WITH manufacturing and selling equipment.  The fact they're a non-profit also strengthed the case.

If the courts were to rule against the USGA, Congress could pass law to allow the USGA authority to govern over the sport...allowing the USGA to set rules and regs, but didn't think the USGA would lose the case with the facts I had presented.

If we did get an OJ type ruling I would think Congressional involvement would be plausable seeing as many are golfers (a guess, but a good one because the chance of someone playing golf increases with their financial level), also George W. Bush is a golfer.  The Walker Cup...wasn't that donated from his family?