[TEPaul]

Tony:

Well, OK, I will correct you where I think you're wrong, and please don't take it personally.

You said; "Everyone wants to play by the rules...." Oh really? I hadn't noticed that to be true or otherwise why did we have such an issue, which has not been remotely resolved to date BTW, between the likes of Callaway/Palmer on one side and others on the other side? Or the continuing USGA & R&A rift? It was and is an enormous global issue in golf involving the rules which has anything remotely resembling a consensus to date. Matter of fact it may be getting worse!

Why also would the like of NIKE be floating a questionnaire polling the public about whether WE deem it important to play "conforming equipment" (that would mean within the rules)? Why would Titleist air such a disrepectful ad aimed at the very "roll-back commonsense" you refer to? But at least I'm glad that someone (you) is so optomistic about the situation and the future!

And you say the manufacturers want an organization to set the rules (like the USGA). I think that is thoroughly naive thinking and logic on your part. They could survive just fine, in their opinions, without anyone telling them what they need to conform to in the production and marketing of their equipment.

And it is patently obvious to me and others that everything that Eli Callaway was trying to do was to confront and overcome the USGA, to cast them into irrelavance by either successfully suing them, going around them or just trampling them with the golfing public behind him and his logic. He didn't deem the B&I rules as necessary to sell golf equipment at all! He wanted an unrestricted atmosphere, if he could get it, tapping every ounce of technological potential he possibly could. He viewed the USGA and their B&I rules and regs as an obstacle and nothing more!

I spent two days discussing this subject with Barney Adams last summer about possible solutions with the manufacturers on the distance issue and the rules and regs and although an extremely nice man he keep underscoring that I had no idea how aggressive and disrespectful these manufacturers have become--no idea!

And you say rolling back the ball is commonsense that everyone sees. I agree with you that it is but unfortunately it is not a commonsense that enough people are recognizing at the moment. And if you think everyone does recognize it I think you are, again, incredibly naive or misinformed and again no offense intended!

This explains why the USGA is not acting more forcefully at this time or as forcefully as you would like to see them or I would like to see them. If they thought they could and could get away with it they would do it in a New York second! I know they would--I know a lot of those people!

What they are looking at here is a changed world--not one that is remotely similar to the way they have been able to operate in the previous 100 years. They are looking at trying to do something without getting completely clobbered--and for that they need the support of the American golfer.

It really sort of burns me when I hear people say that the extent of this issue is that they are weak or ignorant and to prove otherwise all they need to do is stand up and lay down what you think is a commonsense dictate!

That to me is understanding about 10% of this issue and atmosphere. That's only looking at this from the perspective of if they do APPEAR to look weak. Understanding WHY they appear that way is to understand the other 90% of this issue and also how it can be resolved. And for that there is much commonsense ideology spelled out in some of these "communication plans" that have been offered on this topic here!

Later I will cite you again (cited 1 1/2 years ago) the real world, tremendously similar analogy that happened to tennis's USGA, the USLTA, thirty five years ago when faced with a most similar situation as the USGA finds themselves in now! What happened to tennis's USLTA was not pretty! In some ways the USLTA may have won a pyrrhic victory but a small one at that--since technically I guess they are still there somewhere. That's winning the battle and losing the war, BTW!

In my opinion the USGA does need to do this but they very much need to do it the right way in this current environment. And it is anything but an easy way--certainly nowhere near as easy as the way you suggest! But if and when they try, if they don't do it right they could easily end up losing both the battle and the war. And the key to victory is very much all of us and how they present this situation to us!

Sorry we disagree so strongly on this, Tony, but we just might! Again no offense intended!

[Lynn Shackelford]

Wow.  Interesting and well written stuff above.  But a bit depressing.  I have learned:
1.  The R & A is at fault not the USGA.
2.  The USGA does not have the influence and power we hope or thought is does.
3.  Even if the USGA is on the right side of the issue, they seem unwilling or unable to do much with controlling the manufacturers.
4.  The manufacturers have no fear of the USGA because the USGA has done little in the past.  I blame same of this on Frank Thomas.
5  I think the consensus here is, even if you may lose, fight through public relations and all means at your disposal, you are trying to make golf better.  If I am down 2 with 3 to play, I would like to think I would play harder.  
6.  There has been no mention of the PGA.  Is the influence of the head pro a thing of the past?  I sense they have limited the sales if illegal Callaway drivers.
7.  Whatever they do let's hope it is better than their debacle press conference at the US Open at Olympic Club.

[Matt_Ward]

Lynn:

Good stuff! But, when you mention PGA I believe the more important issue is where does the PGA Tour stand while this is happening???

Keep in mind that the PGA Tour and the manufacturers have a relationship based on mutual gain.

Equipment companies need to validate all the "gains" they are making by having some big time name play with the club(s) on tour. The visibility on tour allows for increased consumer interest -- to wit, more sales potentially.

The tour needs the $$ from the equipment companies in a variety of ways -- sponsorship, advertising, promotions, etc.

Hard to believe the PGA Tour will ever take a proactive position that in anyway jeopardizes their cash cow (i.e. equipment companies). Finchem is a smart cookie and he knows that if companies start balking at increased purses (which they are) he does not want to inflame matters with the equipment companies as well in aligning himself too closely with the USGA.

At this point the USGA is just blathering on about what is "good for the game," but there is no real collaborative program that can achieve consensus.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Rope-A-Dope, n.  In boxing, the technique of protecting oneself while an opponent expends themself.

The USGA gains nothing by pressing the relevant issues of  balls and implements. It serves their purpose best to not be perceived as having control over manufacturers. They are presently sitting in the "cat bird's seat", why should they leave? If manufacturers had the evidence they needed to show that the USGA restricted their trade they would be pursuing a case en masse, especially if they are as rapacious as TEPaul suggests. I know I would if I felt an action taken by an association was costing me millions.
As I said in another thread, I believe the recent allowance of clubhead dimensions is tit-for-tat and adds strength to the USGA side in any battles that might occur in the future.
Lynn, you asked about club pros. Of the ones I know, many made the product available but fewer were avid supporters.
Peer pressure was most effective at our course in limiting its popularity.  

[Dan King]

The R&A lacks the USGA’s $100million+ war chest. I’ve also heard, but have never verified, that in the UK each individual member of the R&A could end up personally responsible for a judgment against the R&A.

I think we need to figure out exactly what the problem is before we decide we how to fix the problem. I hear the ball goes to far, and people use PGA Tour stats to prove the point. But is it a problem that the ball goes too far for those other than PGA Tour caliber players? Should everyone be affected because a thousand or so golfers are now hitting the ball too far? Is the problem a USGA problem, or a problem for the various tours?

IMHO, the USGA has a problem twice a year: At the U.S. Open and U.S. Amateur. For the vast majority of the 900,000 USGA members there is no problem. Almost all of those 900,000 members would still find plenty of challenge at a course like Merion.  

I wouldn’t mind seeing the tours and major events go to a competition ball.  Wouldn’t be hard to do, a slightly lighter ball won’t travel as far as the current ball. It would also have the benefit of being more adversely effected by the conditions. I also don’t believe the problem even for the tour caliber player is that the ball goes to far; it is that it goes to straight. In the past the best players would rarely go all out on every tee shot, because they knew a slight miss hit would lead to much more side spin. But now players swing all out. If they miss hit they know the ball will only go 20-30 yards offline rather than 50-60. Plus the consistent tour rough doesn’t bring any fear to most tour players.

I also wouldn’t mind seeing nothing happen.  At one time the average golfer could relate to the tour players. I believe that is becoming less realistic. Hopefully there will be a separation from watching golf and playing golf. Only then will the tour have less influence than they deserve on the game of golf. Wouldn’t that be cool, if manufacturers and the tours would be responsible for killing their own golden goose?

And Boies record hasn’t been all that hot lately. Napster and Al Gore are both essentially dead. Having the best lawyer doesn’t always guarantee victory. It also helps to have a strong case.

"The modern player has grown accustomed to having a special club for every conceivable stroke that he fails to realize how much of his vaunted skill is due to the science of the club-maker."
 --Robert Browning

[TEPaul]

Somebody asked where the PGA of America stands on all this. So far they're standing fairly strong behind the USGA (in some of the immediate battles they've been through, ie, Callaway).

Somebody asked where the PGA Tour stands on all this. Good question! But specifically, what do they (and some of the other entities of golf) think about the position and long term future of the USGA? I would point you all to the original Convocation of most of the entities of golf known as "The Convocation of 2020" less than two years ago. Did you hear about it?

Well I asked one of the participants about what it was and what their goal was. This participant was definitely not insignificant at all in the world of golf, and I was told that the game plan of 2020 was to double participation in the game by 2020!

I asked where it was perceived the USGA fit into all this (since they sent Judy Bell to represent them and this was about 1 1/2 years ago)! I basically was given no answer. So I asked about the rules situation going on with Callaway, and the distance problem, and even architecture and all, and how did this person perceive that would get resolved and was told this: "What the game needs is a Czar, much like baseball". I said, "Oh really, and who might be a good candidate for that?" And was told: "Well, Tim Finchem would be!"

I guess you can see where I'm going with this.

Matt Ward:

Good thoughts, particularly your last and second to last paragraphs.

Jim Kennedy:

I think what you said about the quid pro quo might be accurate and I hope it is.

The USGA has to really get into this big ugly situation going on now, it's just my belief that they need to be very careful how they go about it--but they do need to pull out all the stops and soon and a really good "communications plan" as has been discussed a bit here would be the ticket to start.

For us, we should really talk about what they need to do in specific detail and also talk accurately about what they really are up against these days! It's not simple, I guarantee that, so simple answers might not do, although as TonyR said commonsense answers might. But with their "communication plan" they need to tell a lot of people what that "commonsense" is all about and that ain't that simple either!

It's just too easy and too simple to keep calling them weak and ignorant and that all they need to do is step to the plate and lay down the law. They're not THE LAW guys, never were and never will be! They ADMINISTER the rules of the game, both playing rules and B&I rules and the only reason they do that is because we let them. And they might not always be in that roll if we're all not careful.

And you have to ask yourself, if they weren't there at all, who would do it? Who could?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Matt Ward mentioned the USGA needs to get back in touch with the real golfers.  I recall my secretary - who is not a club member - having a rules question, writing to the USGA and getting a phone call from a well known, pretty high up guy at Golf House, who personally explained what she wanted to know.  We were all surprized at the service, but he explained "that's what we are here for".  USGA does a good job in keeping in touch with the masses in that way....the implements division is a different operation.

And, whose to say they haven't kept in touch there either?  Frankly, most guys would sell there wife and kids to get "just five more yards".  I don't know what percentage of USGA revenue is from members vs. manufacturers, but imagine how the Associates program would fall off if the annual statement came saying "This year, we are going to take your dues money and use it to make your playing of the game much more difficult".  How about, "We can't calculate your handicap this year, as we are too busy with lawsuits against your favorite manufacturers".

Allowing better clubs and balls to make the game more reasonable does appeal to the masses.  It doesn't appeal to a member of an old line club that is no longer considered a respectable test of golf, at any level, because of length.  That in fact, is a distinct minority in golf.  How would USGA be percieved if it did something specifically to benefit a few thousand blueblood members of snooty northeastern clubs?  About like George W. is going to look if it turns out he helped Enron at the public expense.

Dan King has it about right.  One reason the USGA rejects a competition ball is so everyone can play the "same game."  But that game is getting farther and farther apart for pros and amateurs, so it's different anyway.  I think part of the attraction of a PGA Tour event, for serious, casual and non golfers is seeing how far a John Daley will hit that ball. However, perhaps after a time, the disconnect will be so large, no one will be able to relate at all.

I am "Mucchi'ing" a bit here, by playing devils advocate.  I understand many disagree with the expansion of technology, and it is sad to lose certain courses as venues.  

I have two specific questions.  Can any of you average players think of a scenario where you and your partners (not some anonymous other guy) would have more fun if you had a harder time making contact or playing well?

And, for those of you who do favor "rolling back the ball" or clubs, to what year would you propose to roll them back to?  

     *1994, when tour distance started to shot up exponentially?
     *1980, 1970, or 1960 to the Watson/Nicklaus/Palmer eras?
     *The 1950 Hogan Era?
     *1900, with the phase out of the "guttie"
     *or just take it back to the days of Old Tom Morris?

[TEPaul]

Dan:

Nice to hear from you again, glad you're back!

Seems to me you and I discussed or even argued about all this before--or maybe it was the Casey Martin Case and all those ramifications.

I like what you said in your post but that presupposes that the USGA continues to administer the rules with a good degree of compliance from both the manufacturers and the American golfer. That everybody continues to follow their B&I rules and regs, in fact!

What if the manufacturers flooded the market with non-conforming equipment and the American golfer started to buy it and continued to buy it bigtime? What is the USGA going to do then? Would that effect golf's future more than the way you layed it out in your post?

It would if you believe what many of these tech people are starting to say about the likelihood of the manufacturers being able to produce a ball that could fly 450yds+ if they decided to wholesale ignore the USGA's B&I rules and regs!

David Boies? He didn't lose the election for Gore. Anyone would be nuts to think that. And the Republicans lawyers did not win it for Bush either. The Supreme Court made a ruling and sent it back to Florida that ultimately ended up being decided in the Florida courts and then that decision carried forward into the Electoral College as always. I do believe Boies did not argue in the Florida courts.

I've asked around a lot about him and have been told by many in the business that he's somewhat of a weird duck but in this particular field, anti-trust and restraint of trade cases you cannot find better in America to go into the courtroom for you!

Just review the deposition phase of the Microsoft/US government case. Somehow I feel you just might! I am impressed by your research ability! And also his government/IBM case! Basically why the government hired him in the Microsoft case--because the way he took them down impressed the hell out of them!

And the actual case the USGA has if the manny's come after them? It's good and I think you know it--particularly with a guy like Boies explaining it in court!

But remember, even if the USGA does go to court and wins hands down, what have they won really? They've won a case that they did not restrain trade!

So then let's say they win and the mannys say F...this and just produce the ultimate in explosive equipment anyway and the public buys it? There is nothing the USGA or any court of law can do about that, and you know it!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff, Matt, TEPaul,

If someone could post the Sandy Tatum interview in LINKS magazines recent edition, I believe he makes a good case for distance control.

[Tim_Weiman]

Jeff,

A couple points:

First, I am not concerned about Northeastern blueblood clubs.  It really doesn't matter to me if the US Open is never played again at Merion.  The British Open hasn't been played at Prestwick in decades and it is still great fun; leaving Merion alone will hardly hurt the place or the members.

My objection to technology is that far from helping Joe Sixpack, it is really only raising the cost of the game.  Those clever ads run by manufacturers serve only to confuse and obscure the financial impact of technology.  So, in my opinion, does any reference to Northeastern bluebloods.

Creating confusion is an effective debating technique, one that the equipment manufacturers are using pretty well thus far.  They pretend to be concerned about Joe Sixpack when what they really want is to sell $500 drivers for him to play on courses that charge $150 to play.

I'd really like the USGA to stand up for the guy who can't afford more than $500 for an entire set of clubs or pay more than $50 for a round of golf.

On your other question about making it more difficult for Joe Sixpack to hit the ball, I really don't want to do that.  My friend Joe can't afford a new set of clubs, but he fairly often needs to buy a new dozen balls.  Thus, making an adjustment in balls rather than clubs seems like the more fair, more sensitive thing to do.  Joe can keep his Big Bertha in any plan to roll back the distance of the ball.

And, as for fun.  I'm still convinced Joe would have a great time playing 6,200 yard courses smashing drives no more than 250 yards.

[TEPaul]

Jeff:

Neat post and from very different and interesting perspectives. But I would ask you the same thing I did Dan King. What about a scenario where the manufacturers went around the USGA on equipment rules and regs and the public went along with the manufacturers? Just violated the B&I rules en masse? We're not talking an argument against rollback scenrio here--we're talking sky's the limit.

How would you apply your basic argument then?

[Tony Ristola]

TEPaul:  I don't take it personally.  Not at all...ever, unless it is a personal attack...something you have never done and few here have.  It's a point of view, and if someone can offer a better version something to improve my knowledge have at it. That's what this is all about.

I think you misrepresented what I had said though.

TEPaul...you said in rebuttle; "Everyone wants to play by the rules...."

I said: "The USGA and R&A have had a great deal of compliance (over 100 years) because everyone wants rules to define the limitations of proper play, just like society in general."

Rules need be set to define fair play, to have a measuring stick.  Without them golf would not exist, but hit-ball would.  Those who do not follow the rules aren't playing golf but another version of the game.  If they post scores or behave in such a manner they're cheating...themselves and others.  The world is full of them and the rules are their to identify fair play and cheaters.

You wrote: Why also would the like of NIKE be floating a questionnaire polling the public about whether WE deem it important to play "conforming equipment" (that would mean within the rules)?

Nike is in business to understand the market.  I would also want to know everything about the market if I could afford it.  I see nothing wrong with it.  There are many casual golfers who play golf and really don't give a hoot and never compete.  They're out with buddies a few times per year to have fun, joke around, enjoy nature and needle each other.  My brother fits this example perfectly.  If an illegal club makes the game more enjoyable for him and others not serious about the game...so what.  If they enjoy it more... even if the club is a placebo in their hands...what damage is done?  None.

You said:  And you say the manufacturers want an organization to set the rules (like the USGA). I think that is thoroughly naive thinking and logic on your part. They could survive just fine, in their opinions, without anyone telling them what they need to conform to in the production and marketing of their equipment.

I said: "Another is, the manufacturers wouldn't accept any new legislative or judicial body.  They'd ignore it.  So, the USGA and R&A are it.  They are our sole defenders, solely responsible for defending the game."

That's a significant difference.  Without rules there is no game and even the most cynical manufacturer knows this.  Golf without rules would be glorified hiking.  The reason manufacturers do not want a ball rolled back to 1981 technology (Titliest 384) is the ball would be a commodity, prices would sink from cheap imports.  Their market share would get hammered.  I would also want to protect market share if I were Mr. Titliest.

You said:  "And it is patently obvious to me and others that everything that Eli Callaway was trying to do was to confront and overcome the USGA, to cast them into irrelavance by either successfully suing them, going around them or just trampling them with the golfing public behind him and his logic. He didn't deem the B&I rules as necessary to sell golf equipment at all! He wanted an unrestricted atmosphere, if he could get it, tapping every ounce of technological potential he possibly could. He viewed the USGA and their B&I rules and regs as an obstacle and nothing more!"

Did you speak with Ely?  Where is this in factual form?   TEPaul, I made this point several times before...Callaway is in business to sell equipment, to serve shareholders.  The rules of golf are there to set rules of fair play... and identify that which is not.  It is the responsibility of the GOVERNING BODIES to set the rules... to fight for the game's health...it's future.  

Also, someone using non-conforming clubs is not following the Rules of the game and it is up to his playing partners (his marker especially) to identify this misbehavior.  That is the competitors or the members responsibility...to enforce the rules when someone else breaks them...on purpose or not.

You said:  I spent two days discussing this subject with Barney Adams last summer about possible solutions with the manufacturers on the distance issue and the rules and regs and although an extremely nice man he keep underscoring that I had no idea how aggressive and disrespectful these manufacturers have become--no idea!

Well TEPaul the USGA/R&A shouldn't give a hoot how aggressive these manufacturers are.  They need to be strong and bare their teeth WHEN IT IS NEEDED and set rules WHEN NEEDED to maintain the integrity of the game.  Otherwise they are not a governing body, but willing accomplices to the deterioration of the game...fiddlers while Rome burned.

You said: "And you say rolling back the ball is commonsense that everyone sees. I agree with you that it is but unfortunately it is not a commonsense that enough people are recognizing at the moment. And if you think everyone does recognize it I think you are, again, incredibly naive or misinformed and again no offense intended!"

No I don't think everyone understands the ball issue.  Never have stated that.  Ever.  That is why I recommend a leader to take the bull by the horns and make it an issue so much of the golf public at understands.

You wrote:  "What they are looking at here is a changed world--not one that is remotely similar to the way they have been able to operate in the previous 100 years. They are looking at trying to do something without getting completely clobbered--and for that they need the support of the American golfer."

It is litigationsville in the U.S. ... no doubt.  So if they end-game is pretty well known, why not go to it.  A court case surely would rivet the public's attention more than a series of ads, and IT WOULD BE FREE.  They could have daily reports on the court steps explaining the situation DAILY.  

in the late 1970's the R&A eliminated the small ball (1.62) so there is recent precedent for making enormous changes in the game AND TO THE BALL.  

You said: "It really sort of burns me when I hear people say that the extent of this issue is that they are weak or ignorant and to prove otherwise all they need to do is stand up and lay down what you think is a commonsense dictate!"

Opinions are like a__holes, everyone has one... that's mine.  If they aren't weak or ignorant...what are they...on the cutting edge?

It may burn you but what is required?  Feel good BS.  You identify a problem and create a solution, trying to stay the course while people throw all types of objects in your path...that's life.  The problem is the game is out of control and rolling back the ball is the only way to get it back...  Problem-solution...then the job is to create a plan to sell this to the public or go straight for the jugular and behave from a point of strength, letting the manufacturers know that the USGA/R&A are ready for war in the courts and they won't fool around.  It's not rocket science but it does require spine. (I hate courts but the reality is this is where it will end up if the manufactureres don't want to comply.)

You wrote: "That to me is understanding about 10% of this issue and atmosphere. That's only looking at this from the perspective of if they do APPEAR to look weak. Understanding WHY they appear that way is to understand the other 90% of this issue and also how it can be resolved. And for that there is much commonsense ideology spelled out in some of these "communication plans" that have been offered on this topic here!"

I don't care why they are weak.  Don't want to know.  Just want results.  Excuses are made by the millions, and printed every second of every day.  

You said:  "In my opinion the USGA does need to do this but they very much need to do it the right way in this current environment. And it is anything but an easy way--certainly nowhere near as easy as the way you suggest! But if and when they try, if they don't do it right they could easily end up losing both the battle and the war. And the key to victory is very much all of us and how they present this situation to us!"

"In this current environment."  What is it?  When will it change?  How?  By leadership, by taking a stand, by winning the battle, that's how the USGA will change the environment.  If they lose in the courts the old rules will still be on the books and we will enter the era of 7,600 yard US Open courses.

I never said it was easy... the course to take is obvious, but easy... I am not naive...I know this could very well end up with the USGA dipping into their war-chest and having a fight which would make the PING and square grooves issue seem like Mr. Rogers Neighbourhood, but what is the other option?  Touchy, feely niceties should be attempted first with full knowledge that if this doesn't solve the problem the full weight of the USGA will be falling on the manufacturers.  The USGA has the money, they are on the correct side of the issue, the common sense facts are on our side and there is historical precedent.  Just hope we don't get OJ's jury.

[Lou Duran]

I've recently sent the USGA my $50 annual dues after several months agonizing over whether I wanted to help finance an organization which does not seem to be responsive to its membership.  I had previously written to Mr. Fay regarding the "Walking Member" program.  Specifically, I wanted the USGA to support its own walking initiative beyond issuing the yellow symbolic bag tag by lobbying the large corporate owners and management companies on the benefits of allowing choice on this issue.  I believe that the USGA has considerable influence and could use its bully pulpit to make a difference.  Unlike Jeff Brauer's secretary, my request didn't even merit a response.

After a weekend round with my group recently, I brought up the equipment and ball issue for discussion.  I was surprised to hear that to a man (7-9 guys), there was no desire for the USGA to be involved in this issue as it relates to every day play and club competition.  More distressing was the concensus opinion that the USGA only represents its senior officials, the elite clubs (primarily in the Northeast), national scratch amateur competition, the its pro events.  When I brought up the handicap and course ratings systems, they just rolled their eyes.  Most of the guys in my group are/were professional people who are/have been low single digit handicap players.  I have thought a lot about their views and have come to the conclusion that they are probably in the mainstream.

I do not have much faith or hope that my dues will be well spent by the USGA.  I do believe that arresting the growth of techonological advancement in golf equipment is important.  Tom Paul pointed out in another thread a few months back that the USGA is the only organization positioned to make a difference.  This argument more than any other influenced me to send my money one more time.  I will be watching closely for some evidence to suggest that I should do it again next year.

[Tony Ristola]

Lou:  The Clinton administration was able to bend a lot of minds on a series of unbelievable issues...issues which would have cost every other president their job ten times over.  By comparison Nixon was a petty crook.  Your playing partners may roll their eyes now, but after the weeks or months required to litigate the ball matter and having it bandies in the press is it not wholly possible these educated individuals will see things in a different light?  That they would understand the costs of this on the game, the growth?  That it would be for short and long term benefit?

[Dan King]

One mightly long post. Wonder if anyone will actually get to the end of this post. But it's all typed so I might as well paste it in the box.


TEPaul writes:
Nice to hear from you again, glad you're back!

I’ve been around.  Just haven’t had as much time to post lately. That last post of mine got me up to full GCA membership. I’m getting ready to be a 44-year-old freshman in two weeks and that’s been taking up most of my time.  I’ve also been busy catching up on my reading.  My stack of books to be read has shrunk considerably over the last few months.

What if the manufacturers flooded the market with non-conforming equipment and the American golfer started to buy it and continued to buy it bigtime? What is the USGA going to do then? Would that effect golf's future more than the way you layed it out in your post?

I’d be more concerned if the Callaway club had been a huge success in the U.S. It hasn’t been.  Callaway gambled that a large number of golfers would bolt from the USGA and it didn’t happen. But it could. If the USGA were to go to reduced distance  specs and the PGA Tour didn’t follow suite, I could see manufacturers using PGA Tour players to market their non-conforming balls, and it could be a success.

Right now there are plenty of manufacturers making non-conforming balls. They aren’t threatening Titleist’s market share are they? Right now many casual golfers are ignoring USGA rules in casual play. Most casual golfers ignore the stroke and distance penalty for a lost ball in casual play, is this causing USGA problems?

David Boies? He didn't lose the election for Gore.

I never said he did. But lets assume Boies is the best lawyer in the world. Even with all his talents he didn’t win when his case was poor. I believe any sort of rollback on the distant standard would be a poor case for the USGA, a case they will probably lose, regardless of the talent of the lawyer.

I’m not a lawyer, nor a Supreme Court judge expert, but since Supreme Court justices get to play politics, I figure I should get to play Supreme Court judge. So let’s imagine in a few years time Titleist vs. the USGA does get to the highest court in the land:

Marshal of the Supreme Court: Oyez, oyez, oyez. All persons having business before the honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States are admonished to draw near and give their attention for the court is not sitting. God save the United States and this court.  

Chief Justice Guiliani: Mr. Boies, it is your claim that distance has adversely effected the game of golf and the USGA was justified in rolling back the distance standard on golf balls.

Mr. Boies Your Honor, that is correct.

Chief Justice Guiliani: Do you have any documentation to back up that claim.

Mr. Boies: Your Honor, if you will look at the stats for the PGA Tour over the last 10 years you will see that the distance the Tour players are hitting the ball has increased at a dramatic rate faster than other periods when stats were available.

Justice Scalia: And how is this hurting the game of golf?

Mr. Boies: Your honor, it requires longer courses and greater expense.

Justice Scalia: Isn’t the PGA Tour now playing only their own 8,000 yard TPC courses and having no effect on courses they don’t play. Isn’t it also true that the TPC courses also have full tee sheets and can charge top dollar for green fees?


Mr. Boies: Your honor, that is true, but other courses want to compete with TPC for the golfers that want PGA Tour experience and are being made longer. Torrey Pines added yardage that makes the course 7,600 and other top courses are following suite. Many of the rankings of golf courses won’t even consider a golf for top honors unless it has the ability to stretch to over 7,500 yards. Our older courses such as Merion and Cypress Point can’t compete because they don’t have the ability to add that sort of yardage.

Justice Scalia: So you are saying courses such as Merion and Cypress Point are no longer popular with golfers?

Mr. Boies: No your honor, they are still very popular, they just aren’t challenging enough to the top golfers in the world.

Justice Scalia: But they still are very popular to the vast majority of golfers who would pay most any price to play these courses.

Justice Souter: Let’s look at how distance has hurt golf.  You bring up the PGA Tour and their driving distances. If we look at the stats for 2001, the year before Titleist brought this suite, the top players on the driving distance stats were: John Daly, Brett Quigley, Davis Love, Tiger Woods and David Duval. The golfers in position 120 through 124 were: J.P. Hayes, Bradley Hughes, Brian Henninger, Craig Kanada and Steve Jones. Wouldn’t you say the top group is much more popular than the lower group?

Mr. Boies: Yes Your Honor, but…

Justice Souter: And isn’t the PGA Tour more popular than ever? Even the Tour Commissioner, Mr. Finchem believes it will some day surpass the NFL as the most popular sport in the U.S. I fail to see how distance is hurting the PGA Tour.

Mr. Boies: But we attribute that more to the Tiger effect than the distances the players are hitting.

Justice Souter: But Mr. Woods is up near the top of driving distance leaders and has been ever since he turned professional. I fail to see how amazing distances these players hit the ball has been detrimental to golf.

Mr. Boies: Your honor, it is our position that it has been detrimental to golf, not to the Tour. It is our position that the growth of golf has been flat over the last decade, and we believe the problem is the cost of the game and that golfers are buying game improvement instead of doing it the way it should be done, by working on their game. Because of the distance the ball travels golfers aren’t sufficiently challenged and they miss that challenge.

Justice O’Connor: But hasn’t passed technology improvements in golf  led to eventual growth in golf? The advent of the Gutty, the Haskel, the larger American ball, suryln covers, steel shafts, game improvement clubs, metal heads, all led to surges in golf popularity. It never happened overnight, but the surge did happen. With the Titleist V1 coming out in 2000 and the USGA attempt to roll back in 2002, is it possible that you didn’t wait long enough for the surge in popularity to catch up?

Mr. Boies: We don’t believe that to be true, besides we also believe it is up to the USGA to regulate the game as they see fit and to maintain the traditions of the game.

Justice Thomas: (Not clear from the transcripts if Justice Thomas was clearing his throat or his mic was on when he snored.)

Justice Ginsberg: But weren’t these balls that fit within your overall standard when you tested them and approved them?

Mr. Boies: Yes Your Honor, but the USGA wasn’t prepared for the advances in swing speeds that would happen over the last decade.

Justice Ginsberg: But isn’t swing speed advances a tribute to the work and conditioning of the athletes? Isn’t that what golf should be testing? It seems to me that distance has always been an advantage in golf and I fail to understand why now the USGA wants to penalize those that worked hardest.

Mr. Boies: (Tom maybe you can come up with some words to put into Mr. Boies mouth for this question.)

Justice Scalia: Lets get back to the desire to make balls that the USGA approved now non-conforming. How exactly will that work?

Mr. Boies:Your honor, the USGA is willing to give the manufacturers a grace period where they will know the new parameters a few years before the new tests are implemented.

Justice Scalia: Titleist claims there is no sufficient grace period. If they decide to continue to only manufacture USGA conforming balls they will be stuck sitting on their R&D hands during the grace period. Meanwhile a company like Spalding could come out with new balls during the grace period that are advanced from current technology. Since Spalding works on smaller margins and smaller inventories they could get out newer generation of balls during the grace period that would eat into Titleist market share. Spalding could even advertise their new ball as currently conforming and more advanced than Titleist V1, meanwhile Titleist is stuck in a holding pattern waiting for the grace period to end. Would this be fair to Titleist?

Mr. Boies: (Another question I can’t think of a sufficient answer for)

Justice Kennedy: I know when I play golf I love it when I really connect. There aren’t many more thrilling experience in golf than when you really tag one out there further than you usually do.

Chief Justice Guiliani Justice Kennedy, was there a question some where in that statement?

Justice Kennedy: No there wasn’t. I’m just still upset I didn’t get the big chair. If it wasn’t for 911, I’d be sitting in your chair right now, so don’t count on a lot of cooperation from me.

"Had the gutta-percha golf ball not been invented, it is likely enough that golf itself would now be in the catalogue of virtually extinct games, only locally surviving, as stool-ball and knurr and spell."
  --Horace Hutchinson, 1899

[TEPaul]

TonyR:

That was quite a post of yours, probably the longest I've ever seen on this site--and very well thought through, passionate! I still do not agree with the way you look at various aspects of the USGA and the realities of this situation, but no real matter in that!

I would truly like to answer your post because you very much deserve to be answered--you can't imagine how much I appreciate and admire someone who takes the time and the effort you must have taken with that post. And I will try to answer it but it will take me some time.

Here's the deal TonyR! I'm trying to go to the USGA with a proposal that very much countenances these issues and some others too. It's something I've thought very seriously about for many years. My proposal will have to be cogent, I know.

The strength of it will have to be in the ability to identify problems as they really are or even how they see them and to identify solutions they can truly understand and effect. They see obstacles and I think I understand how they see them and I also think I can see some solutions and how they can overcome them to their benefit and also for golf's benefit.

I know you must ask why am I doing this and how can I. Because I care very much and I think I might have enough of a platform left to do it but that might be slipping away as time passes.

Would you care to help me with this? I hope that you would. I will make the proposal available to you when I finish it. It will be enormous in scope and I feel that there is much in it that is symbiotic right on down through the vertical structure of golf. I'm trying to find win-win situations whereever I can and reanalyze obstacles which may appear so but now may be only structural in an organizational sense!

Who wants to help me with this? They really do need to act and so do we. Who wants to stop discussing only what the problems are and start really trying to do something about identifying and doing something about some solutions?

There is such a tendency to look at the USGA as some people up on a hill somewhere who are out of touch with us. I know a lot of them, and they aren't much different than we are.

So come on let's do something about this, directly if we can. This can be more than letter writing and wondering if they deserve our dues!

[TEPaul]

Jeesus Dan, not you! You're a smart guy, what are you talking about there? If that was total satire, now is not the time!

No manufacturer is going to drag the USGA into court to litigate the "distance issue"! That's not an issue that anyone can litigate. All the manufacturers can take the USGA to court for is restraining their trade somehow! They can't take the USGA to court for setting regulations for balls and implements that anyone and everyone has complete freedom of choice to comply with or not!

Don't you understand that the USGA has no enforcment power? Anyone can break their rules and regs anytime they feel like it with complete immunity!

This distance issue is one of total compliance or not regarding the USGA's regs. No judge in the land is going to rule on what the golfing public (or a manufacturer) can comply with or not if it's completely voluntary!

[Tim_Weiman]

Dan King:

High marks for entertainment.  I expected nothing less!

You are looking for two answers for Mr. Boies:

First, regardless of the distance standard for the ball, players who can hit the ball longer will always have an advantage.  Rolling back the distance standard will improve the economics for everyone who plays the game; it will not undermine the competitive advantage stronger and longer players currently have.

Second, no company should be rewarded for being less efficient than its competitors.  If anything, Spalding should be rewarded for competing more effectively, i.e., operating with lower margins and smaller inventories.  There is no reason to believe Titleist lacks the intellectual horsepower and financial resources to compete in the golf ball business.  There are decades of evidence to prove that simply isn't the case.  Titleist can get their act together very quickly.  They already know how to produce balls that meet the new regulations.  They can easily do so in three days; they hardly need anywhere near three years.  The grace period is more than sufficient.  Moreover, Titleist doesn't need to "sit on their R&D hands".  There is a better option: they can cut R&D costs and lower overall product costs.  Joe Sixpack doesn't need $50 golf balls.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TEPaul,

The GD (intrepret that any way you want) Frank Thomas article mentions that pretty soon, basic aerodynamics will begin to limit the length of the ball.  Something about the weight of the ball, extra lift or spin negating other factors, yada, yada, yada.  I have heard it before, and although it hasn't stopped the increase, the basic premise seems to make sense to me.  Maybe the sky is not the limit.

Another perspective is that as crazy as the USGA/manufacturers rift is, there have been crazier things that get us from black and white "one size fits all" laws we remember having to more touchy feely laws that take "feeling" and stuff into account.  The ADA is one example, as who ever thought the supreme court would rule that professional athletes should each get their own "special accomodations" vs. the traditional view that everyone plays by the same rules, period?  
Tim Weiman,

As Lou Duran's post reflects, perhaps us Texan's are overly sensitive about "Northeast Bias".

Since no one bit on my "how far would you roll it back" question, here is another proposal, assuming that everyone will just play what they want despite the USGA.  Why not a series of balls, not just competition/recreational?  Let's say the Pro V "62" basically tuned to 6200 yard courses, the Pro V "70" for 7000 yard courses, etc,?  You could play Merion comparing your skills to Hogan, or Graham, or Trevino, using the handy chart in the pro shop to estimate which ball would be necessary.

Probably crazy, but getting to that time of night!  In fact, the different balls might not be that conceptually different than the handicap system, would they?  

Technically speaking, the manufacturers could probably make several runs of the ball each year.  Of course, the longest ball would be far and away the biggest seller!  But wouldn't it be nice if they made a few runs for the traditionalist who wants the game a bit more like it used to be?

[Tim_Weiman]

Jeff Brauer:

No worries.  I just think the manufacturers have very skillfully shaped the dialogue.  They are likely to portray any rollback proposal as the result of "Northeast elite club bias" at the same time they are trying to hook Joe Sixpack on $50 golf balls.

[Lou Duran]

Tony,

Just as the universe of people seriously interested in golf architecture, its history, and evolution is extremely small, the number of people who worry about run-away technology affecting the game is probably nearly insignificant.  Clinton got away with so much probably because he understood what the people wanted and, generally, was able to at least appear that he delivered.  If most folks want to hit it further and straighter, can a small minority influence the USGA to do what we believe is right?  Perhaps Tom Paul does have something up his sleeve.

Tom Paul,

For those of us without contacts in rarefied air, what other recourse do we have than to write letters and/or withold our financial support?  My contact with regional USGA officials at local qualifiers has not been particularly positive.  There is at least an apperance of "standoffishness" or aloofness.  It could be a class thing, but most do not seem to relate well to the golfing public.  I do believe that the issues are important so if you need someone to review your proposal and you believe that I can be of assistance, please let me know.  

[Tim_Weiman]

Lou Duran:

I've got something up my sleeve.  Why don't we start talking about why Titleist can't be more like a well respected company from Texas?

Micheal Dell sure knows how to deliver ever improving "technology" at ever lower prices.

Why can't Titleist do so?

[Dan King]

TEPaul writes:
No manufacturer is going to drag the USGA into court to litigate the "distance issue"! That's not an issue that anyone can litigate. All the manufacturers can take the USGA to court for is restraining their trade somehow! They can't take the USGA to court for setting regulations for balls and implements that anyone and everyone has complete freedom of choice to comply with or not!

Cool.  Then is the only problem that we haven’t convinced the powers-that-be at Far Hills that they should roll back? From all their rhetoric you’d think they are all for a roll back.  What’s the hold up? Any thoughts on why they back tracked on the club head size? Couldn’t be out of fear of litigation could it?

Come to think of it if they are in no danger of being sued why have they built up this $100 million war chest? I can think of things I’d rather they do with my dues.

This distance issue is one of total compliance or not regarding the USGA's regs. No judge in the land is going to rule on what the golfing public (or a manufacturer) can comply with or not if it's completely voluntary!

Titleist has spent some amount of money to ensure they comply with USGA standards. Your asking the USGA to roll back the ODS which will make Titleist inventory of golf balls suddenly (or at some date in the future) non-conforming. Do you believe Titleist won’t see that as restraint of trade? All the leading ball lines are sold as conforming balls. Non-conforming balls are nowhere on the list of top sellers. Titleist will sue, and not only will they sue, they will also win. That is why the USGA is not rolling back the ODS. $100 million isn’t enough to fight off all of the manufacturers when they are wrong.

Why not try the more voluntary method? Start with a competition ball, try and get the Men of Green, the USGA Competition committee and the Tours to go with the competition ball.  This won’t affect the existing inventory, only their ability to market, much harder to prove damages in court.

Someone brought up the small British ball. The British ball didn’t go away one day. The European Tour made the larger ball mandatory in 1968. The R&A made it mandatory at the Open Championship in 1974. It didn't become mandatory at the Walker Cup until 1987. By the time the rule was changed to increase the minimum size of the bal in 1990 there were very few small balls left.

Of course there is a big difference. The smaller British ball had some benefits, but the larger American ball also had some benefits, so it was an easier sell to the masses to use the larger ball. We are now talking about a shorter ball that lacks any benefits over a longer ball. But since the more voluntary method has proved it worked before in the past, why not try using the same method for the rolledback ball?

Tim Weiman writes some excelllent answers, but…
First, regardless of the distance standard for the ball, players who can hit the ball longer will always have an advantage.

But will this be an ongoing process? As the top players continue to improve will the USGA continue to need to roll back the ODS?  If you use the top few players in the world as justifying why we need a rollback, doesn’t that at least give the appearance of trying to punish the best players? If every time they start separating themselves from the rest of us we decide to roll back, couldn’t that be seen as a disincentive to improvement.  

Second, no company should be rewarded for being less efficient than its competitors.

Titleist has been the most successful ball company by marketing their product better than anyone else. This allows them to have larger margins and larger inventories than other manufacturers. This business model has worked well for them. I believe they would have a serious problem with the USGA insisting they change their business model, even for just a few year grace period.

Joe Sixpack doesn't need $50 golf balls.

Of course he doesn’t need it. But he has shown that given the right marketing he is more than willing to pay $50 for golf balls. An important part of that marketing is that USGA approval. Both Titleist and I believe Joe Sixpack will not pay $50 for that dozen golf balls if they do not meet USGA approval.

Jeff Brauer writes:
Let's say the Pro V "62" basically tuned to 6200 yard courses, the Pro V "70" for 7000 yard courses, etc,?  You could play Merion comparing your skills to Hogan, or Graham, or Trevino, using the handy chart in the pro shop to estimate which ball would be necessary

I like it. It’s a solution that leaves it up to the golfer which ball to use not the rule of law (Rules of Golf.) Say JohnV, Rich Goodale, Pete Galea and I show up to play a match. JohnV and Rich are considerably longer than I am, while Pete and I are closer to the same distance (at least while he has a bad hip.) John and Rich could either give us a few strokes to better make a match or we could negotiate that they play the Pro V62 while I get to play the Pro V70. But then I’m a libertarian and will generally prefer voluntary, free market systems to rules and laws.

The only issue is how to get the manufacturers to go for it.

"I really do not see why we should allow the Haskell to come in. It should be slaughtered at the ports. The discovery of a ball that flies considerably further would be a menace to the game of golf. It would immediately make all of our holes the wrong length."
  --Manchester Guardian, 1901

[Lou Duran]

Tim-

I am probably missing your point, but to the best of my knowledge, Titleist has an excellent reputation not only here in Texas, but throughout the world.  The Pro-V line is coming down in price and the NXT is being marketed at a lower price point.  Judging from the balls that I am finding at the middle-class private club where I pay dues, Titleist appears to be taking market share from Spalding and Bridgestone.  We may not like its CEO and the NXT commercials are insulting if taken seriously, but I think that the company is pretty successful.

Michael Dell is the MAN!  My son goes to UT in Austin and the Dell that I bought him puts my Compaq and IBM to shame.   But do you not think that he would exploit whatever technological advantage he could gain over his competition?  Dell does build some great machines at prices that many people can't afford.  Would he act to the detriment of the industry as long as his company would enjoy greater prosperity?  Many of his shareholders would hope so.

As Sandy Tatum noted in the current issue of "Links", high cost is having a negative impact on the growth of the game.  I see the problem to be much more in the fees charged to play and practice as opposed to equipment and balls.  Just go to eBay and you can purchase a full set of perfectly functional second or third generation irons for $100 to $300, titanium drivers for under $150, putters and wedges for under $50, and 100 balls for less than $20.  If you don't care what they look like, I can put a full set of very functional "pro quality" clubs, bag and accessories together for $250.

I don't think that it is realistic for us to expect a for-profit entity to curb its innovation (if it leads to profitability) because a small number of people are concerned about its impact on the future of the game.  I believe that if it is important to do something about it (and I do), the USGA will have to lead despite the serious legal threat posed by the manufacturers and the backlash from the public for taking unpopular actions.   Thus far, it appears to me, the USGA is not showing great resolve.

BTW my wife showed me a blurp in "Budget Travel" magazine about a trip- seven days/six nights at B & Bs, rental car, and RT air on Aer Lingus  from NY, Boston, or Baltimore to Shannon for $399, 1/1 through 2/8 (+$50 through end of March).  Seems like a great deal.  Do you thing that there are 3-4 decent golf days out of a week during that time of the year?

  

[TEPaul]

Dan et al:

I don't know how to say this again or better cuz it's all there in some of the previous posts, but the USGA is not taking anyone to court on the "distance issue". Why would they do that? How could they? What would the grounds for taking anyone to court be? That a manufacture was ruining the game?

No court would hear that. If a court were approached by the USGA, they would respond: "You're at this moment the body that administers the rules of the game, if you feel this way get out there and tell the American golfer and the manufacturers that, not us. We're not going to take your place in enforcing and administering the B&I rules of golf; we have no ability or right to do that. It's up to the American golfer to decide what to use and any manufacturer to make whatever they want. If it sells it sell, if it doesn't it doesn't, it's a free world USGA--you deal in a world of voluntary compliance, so get out there in front of the American golfer and the manny's and convince them--not us, because we aren't going to do it for you. USGA, BTW, do you really understand what a world of voluntary compliance means. It means there is no law to enforce this policy, these rules and regs and complying with them are voluntary, and there's nothing we can do about that--it's up to the Amercian golfer to decide if this pasttime and this sport is getting hurt or not."

And furthermore, Dan, the USGA is extremely unlikely to take anyone to court on the "distance issue", since they would be the plaintiff and a plaintiff or complainant must prove his case against a defendant, I believe. And as you can see from your Supreme Court example case even a Boies might struggle to do that.

So then the USGA logically should get out there, try to sell their case for rollback to the American golfer and to the manufacturers, obviously giving them the time they need so as not to screw up their production lines, inventories, whatever, and to start to manufacture equipment that complies to the USGA's new rolled back B&I rules and regs. (the British ball is a good example and analogy of how that can be done without anybody getting hurt, restraining trade, whatever)! And if the USGA presents there proposed rollback to the manufacturers and the public cogently enough maybe the rollback will be accepted and everyone will comply, just like they always have done.

Now say the USGA rolls back and some manufacturer (or maybe all of them) are not happy about it for some reason. They will likely take the USGA to court on the grounds that the USGA is restraining their trade somehow. That is certainly my belief of the likely grounds, understanding that anyone can try to take anyone to court for almost anything, always considering if the court is likely to hear their concerns and the likelihood of prevailing in court. Do we all realize how often a court tells the parties to a case to just get the hell out of here and work things out on your own?

So say the manny's take the USGA to court for restraint of trade and obviously they will have to prove the USGA has done that. The manufacturers' lawyers will possibly claim that the USGA has not given them the lead time to comply with the new regs, or they might claim that the USGA has somehow defamed their product or name brand to the American public or even accused them somehow of hurting the game of golf.

So naturally in this whole process of proposing a rollback the USGA needs to be very careful not to do that and give any manufacturer some grounds to use in court! And as we can see they have been very careful so far not to do that.

So say they get hauled into court on restraint of trade grounds and the complaints (mannys) have to prove their case against the defendant (USGA). I really don't know what they will tell the judge or jury but the USGA will simply say that they are only setting new rules and regs because they figure technology has taken the game out of control or will and that they believe the golfing public wants this (hopefully because they've told the USGA that and that is us, BTW) and will go along with it and a tough lawyer like Boies will remind the court that this whole issue is one very simply based on the voluntary compliance anyway both of the public and of the manufacturers and that they have done nothing to hurt or restrain the trade of a manufacturer, they have only asked everyone to comply, and of course whether they do that or not is up to them----it is after all a free world and so is what to do about the game--it's voluntary compliance!

Personally, I think that would do it; the mannys would fail to prove their case and the USGA would win, in effect. But what have they won really? The court's backing that the mannys or the public must comply with the new rules and regs? Of course not! It's still a situation of voluntary compliance as it always has been and the mannys and the public can decide to comply or not anytime they want to!

So that's the way I see it. I could be wrong but that's the way I read the situation after looking at it unfold for a long time and talking to a number of people involved in the process.

And what about this issue of the USGA and the R&A being afraid to collaborate and unify on the B&I rules because the mannys are telling them if they do that they will be creating a "monopolistic" situation, in effect. Personally, I think that's nothing more than legal saber rattling and intimidation and the mannys could never prove that either. To me that's smoke!

Why? Because both organizations are "non-profits" and they aren't in the business of "business". They are only "voluntary compliance" rules and regs administrators for the good of a game!

So that's the way I see it and I agree with Jim Kennedy that the USGA with this "compromise move" on the size of the clubhead might be trying to start the negotiating process with the mannys to get their compliance on new rules and regs, maybe even a rollback. That may not be in the wind though. Maybe they are just negotiating to really hold the line here!

So I hope that shows how this issue ultimately is really just up to us--the golfing public and not the USGA, not the manufacturers and not the courts!

I could be wrong, but that's the way I see it. So now it's the time for the USGA to get out there and try to convince all of us why this would be a good thing for the game.

Do you think they will? Do you think they can? What do you think WE are going to say about this and what do you think WE are going to want.

Will WE comply with the USGA or won't WE? To me that's ultimately the sum and substance of this entire issue!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()