Karl MacGinty needs to do a little more research. The R&A and the USGA were beaten down in the courts starting in the 80's with the Ping and Callaway (in the US) law suits over grooves and technology. Manufacturers took advantage of the opening and went into hyperdrive, releasing clubs and balls at a frightening rate. The courts with all of their "expertise" handcuffed the ruling bodies.

Tiger's 19 under had nothing to do with the Road Hole. Does nobody understand that the hole consistenly plays way over par in the Open? Thus, making it longer will only marginally change the scoring average for the whole even. The Road Hole has stood up to technology. So tinkering with it is just missing the point.

Court-pretty depressing really if its the manufacturers that are ruling the game and not the games ruling bodies-but i fear you are right.
I think MacGinty has a point tho-my info leads me to believe the groove change might not be as significant as hoped.Hope we are both wrong-never thought I'd see the day when the road hole was seen to be getting too easy!

MacGinty's suggestion that the number of clubs be reduced from 14 to 11 is an excellent idea, since the USGA/R&A have no say on equipment specifications. Make the players play the game with skills other than Bomb&Gouge, Bomb&Gouge. As for the lawsuits, both of the ruling bodies folded without ever really contesting the issues. Wimps. Neither Karsten Solheim nor Ely Callaway (nor Ol' Wally today) were really that much of a threat. And even if they were, the Lord hates a coward.

I think seeing Rory McIlroy birdie it with a seven iron approach was just too much for the old codgers to handle. I think the new tee is designed to take the building out of play somewhat, so that can't be too bad.

Not sure how it works with the USGA but the theory goes that the R and A is a private members club and as such the members would be liable if they lost a law suit.Cue much choking into the gin and much backing down in a fight!

Chico - my problem with the court decisions was that they only looked at the dispute from a manufacturer's bottom line point of view. They didn't give any sort of consideration to the game itself and the potential problems the manufacturers were going to cause just so they could sell more clubs and balls.

We're living the fruits of those short-sighted, and very likely ignorant, court decisions.

What "court decisions" are we talking about here? The Ping groove dispute wasn't decided by a court. The defendants bailed and settled. When Callaway's driver was deemed non-conforming, they rattled some litigation sabers, but never filed.

That's the real problem with the USGA. They've been unwilling to put their foot down and regulate the game, and pay competent counsel what is necesary to defend their right to do so. Hire some lawyers who aren't afraid to try a case. Some people who know and love the game, and who will be able to communicate to a trier of fact the reason that the game is imperiled by the distances that the modern golf ball travels. . . so much so that the Old Course that Old Tom Morris played on is now being extended to the driving range next door.

But don't blame short-sighted or ignorant court decisions for the inability of the USGA to institute some type of control.

As for Chico's point about personal liability on the part of R&A members, while a potential concern, perhaps it's time for the R&A's governing side to be separated from the old school buddy member system anyway? We all know that the manufacturers have the capability of creating a golf ball that will not travel so far. It doesn't have to be one ball. Some guys don't want so much spin, some do. But if the overall distance standard is somehow modified, something the engineers can clearly do (I'm no engineer, but people I trust have told me and written that this can readily be accomplished), , then Rory won't hit 7-iron into the Road Hole, and we won't have to climb over a wall to get to the tee!

Chico I am not certain that it is still the case that the R&A's chartering documents still hold the possibility that officers and directors bear personal liabillity, as Leonard DeCof exploited in the Ping Eye 2 litigation. (It was Michael Bonalleck who was famously visited by DeCof's process server at the Walker Cup dinner in the U.S., right?)

I don't know; does anyone? Is that still a litigation weakenss for the R&A?

As for reducing the number of clubs in a tour players bag to 11, or some other arbitrary number. Ridiculous. What an awful idea. I can tell you the clubs that will not come out of the bag: Driver. Lob Wedge. Putter. Everything else will become less important. Bomb-and-gouge will become more important. If players make up a set with 5-7-9 iron gaps, all that means is that they will miss more greens, and do more flop-wedging. They won't shorten up on 340-yard drives. Those 340-yard drives will become more important than ever. Golf and golf courses will remain as distorted as ever.

I presume that the only reason that we are even discussing a reduction in the number of golf clubs in a bag is that somebody has the notion that the USGA could reduce that number (of total allowable clubs) and NOT get sued. And that the USGA really WOULD get sued if it tried to roll back golf balls.

If that's it, I say bring on the lawsuits. And sign me up for "The Volunteer Lawyers' Committee to Defend the USGA."

INCREASE number of clubs. trade that for a golf ball rollback.

11 clubs AND a rollback--thats regulatory armageddon. you put 1-3 manf out of business. they have no choice but to sue.

other option-take away the tee.

Chico - you are absolutely right this was the case at the time of the Ping lawsuit. The R&A has since been split into two entities, a public body with committees responsible for the Open championship, rules of golf, equipment changes etc, and the private members club run by a Club Committee of 8 members and a General Committee overseeing both sides. Therefore if the R&A lost a huge lawsuit, individual members would no longer be liable.

Thanks 38.
I will have a lot less sympathy with lack of action now!

roll back the balls - adjust the club rules - club sales go through another boom. balls just shift, but people will be buying new drivers the next week.

The R & A is the morphed trading name of the rule making body. It is separate from the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St Andrews, which is a private club and is not the rule making body. There are old farts in both.

Chuck - It was my understanding (as of a couple of years ago) that personal liability is still an issue for members of the R&A because it is not incorporated. Why they have not incorporated is odd, but I am not familiar with the legal issues that might be invloved in the UK.

None of that is a problem for the USGA, however.

Why not have two sets of balls?

One for the pros, which are regulated for distance and balls for the rest of us who need all the extra distance we can get.

Lets face it, 99.9% of the market for golf balls is us duffers.

The manufacturers can still use pros as endorsers, since most consumers will look at the winners of tournaments (read Titleist) as the reason to buy a ball vis-a-vis another brand.

This way, everyone is happy. The USGA, the manufacturers and the golfing public who like the longer hitting balls.

Am I missing something?

I admit that I have no soul, but did baseball miss Ebbets Field. I could not possibly care less if they ever use Merion again. If these courses don't hold up, move on. The exception is Augusta National. It is great to see the same course every year (OK, a different course on the same land every year). Be gentle.

The Q-I'm with you all the way.
Dbag-cos when they replace Merion they replace it with Liberty National-I rest my case.
(I would also refer you to your post on the 21st when you were describing Merion as a national treasure!)