Calloway sued the Royal CANADIAN GA in a CALIFORNIA court. The Court rightly threw out the suit.
The USGA has a COR Rule. They have proposed rules for length of club and size of clubhead, which will probably take effect in the new year. All this will help stop the increases. But, there are still not restrictions on shafts, which I would like to see (not sure how to do it though.)
Daniel, as for Sam Snead's putter, there weren't enough of them out there for a lawsuit to mean much and the times were different.
They have rolled back the maximum distance a ball can go with their new test procedures. But, in saying that no current balls will be dropped from the conforming ball list, I wonder, do none currently go the maximum or will some balls go more than the new maximum and still be grandfathered?
I found an article on the Brooklyn Eagle archives that was written on Sept 8, 1902 which says that the Rules makers are thinking about making rules for a standard golf ball. Why? Not because the new rubber cored ball goes to far, but because it takes away the advantage of the longer hitter as it narrows the distance between him and the shorter hitter.
Some wanted no standard, some just a weight and size standard and some a standard on construction materials.
"They (standardizers) hold that the new rubber-filled balls confer an advantage on the weaker players, inasmuch as a miss-hit ball, if straight, goes farther than a gutta percha ball. It is also admitted that a short driver, if he hits straight, drives more than a proportionate distance farther than the long driver, both playing with the rubber-filled ball."
They then go on to state that this new ball is spoiling present courses by making the holes too short.
The other side argued:
"Against these contentions it is urged, first, that it is sufficient to establish the size and weight of the ball as in other games and since there is a mathematical limit beyond which it is physically impossible to propel a ball of the present size and weight, which has almost been reached, that it is against human nature to prevent its attainment."
Then later:
"Finally, that in cases where holes are spoiled by the use of the new ball, the proper remedy is to rearrange the hazards or alter the tees."
The final paragraph is:
"To our mind, the only contingency which would justify the establishent of so drastic a standard as the opponents of new balls propose would be the invention of a ball that entirely defeated the superior skill and strength of an opponent, or which made the game impossible in the spaces at present devoted to its pursuit. Nobody has suggested that the new balls do either of these things."
Today people argue that the opposite of the first reason is a reason for limiting the ball. The second is now the valid reason for scaling back the ball, if it was true for all golfers. But, it really is only true at the highest level. So, I guess we can continue as is or we can bifurcate.