USGA: Hot List 365: Golf Digest

The End of an Era: USGA/R&A ban anchored putting

Tuesday, May 21, 2013

By Mike Stachura

Golf's ruling bodies announced this morning that the anchored stroke, the method typically employed by players using long and belly putters and the method that has been used by the most recent winners of the game's two oldest professional championships, will no longer be allowed, beginning in 2016.

In a joint announcement, the U.S. Golf Association and The Royal & Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews cited the definition of the stroke as "freely swinging the entire club" to explain their rationale for instituting a ban on anchored putting, which has been used by the winner of four of the last six major championships, including Webb Simpson's and Ernie Els' wins with anchored belly putters at last year's U.S. Open and British Open and Adam Scott's recent Masters victory with an anchored long putter.

The announcement comes nearly six months after the ruling bodies proposed a rule banning anchoring, and, in unprecedented fashion for a playing rule, after a 90-day public comment period. The rule, which will be known as 14-1b, will go into effect beginning in 2016. Its language is unchanged from the proposed wording announced last November:

"In making a stroke, the player must not anchor the club, either 'directly' or by use of an 'anchor point.'

Related: The anchoring rule in pictures

"Note 1: The club is anchored 'directly' when the player intentionally holds the club or a gripping hand in contact with any part of his body, except that the player may hold the club or a gripping hand against a hand or forearm.

"Note 2: An 'anchor point' exists when the player intentionally holds a forearm in contact with any part of his body to establish a gripping hand as a stable point around which the other hand may swing the club."

USGA President Glen D. Nager called the decision "necessary."

"Our best judgment is that Rule 14-1b is necessary to preserve one of the important traditions and challenges of the game--that the player freely swing the entire club," he said. "The new rule upholds the essential nature of the traditional method of stroke and eliminates the possible advantage that anchoring provides, ensuring that players of all skill levels face the same challenge inherent in the game of golf."

Peter Dawson, R&A chief executive, echoed Nager's opinion, and acknowledged its controversial nature. "We recognize this has been divisive issue but after thorough consideration we remain convinced that this is the right decision for golf."

Though they sought public comment on the proposed rule to ban anchoring, the ruling bodies were impressed by both the volume and passion of the responses they received. The USGA took in approximately 2,200 individual responses, while the R&A received 450 from 17 countries.

Related: Notable rules changes in golf

In a 40-page explanation, the USGA and R&A outlined responses to a laundry list of objections to the proposal. The document reads almost like a legal treatise or amicus brief, not surprisingly perhaps given that current USGA President Glen D. Nager has argued 13 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. It could also be seen as a first strike against potential anchored putting lawsuits in the future.

Among the most telling words in that document:

On why anchoring is a problem: "Rule 14-1b is based on a judgment that anchoring the club, rather than freely swinging it, might assist the player by altering and reducing the challenge of making a stroke."

On why the rule did not need statistical justification: "The playing rules are definitional: individually and collectively, they reflect what the game is and how it should be played. For example, a player may not pick up the ball and roll it into the hole. That is not because the rulemakers assessed through statistical or other empirical analysis whether players rolling the ball by hand are more successful than players using a club to strike the ball; rather, it is because rolling the ball with one's hand is simply not 'golf.'

On whether it was unfair to ban a method that has been in use for more than 25 years: "It is only recently that a non-trivial and recurring use of anchoring methods emerged--an extremely short time in the history of this 600-year-old game and not reflective of any established tradition."

On why anchoring is not golf: "The concept of immobilizing one end of the golf club against the body ... is a substantial departure from the traditional understanding of the golf swing."

On why allowing the long and belly putter previously did not stand as tacit approval of anchoring: "No one who chose to use this technique was promised that a rule prohibiting anchored strokes would never be adopted. ...[I]nsisting that any emerging issue of play either be resolved by immediate rule change or be set aside and permanently ignored would ... place an untenable burden on the rulemaking bodies and be to the severe detriment of the game."

On why banning anchoring will not hurt the growth of the game: "[T]here is a difference between possibly not playing as well and playing less or not at all; and there is a difference between expressions of possible future intent made well in advance of the rule's effective date and actual behaviors that will only later occur as players adapt to the rule."

On why players will not face extreme hardship because of the ban: "Just as golfers did not need years to transition from making non-anchored strokes with a shorter putter to making anchored strokes with a longer putter, they should not need years to transition to a non-anchored style. The 2016 effective date provides more than enough time for whatever transition steps are deemed desirable and necessary."

On bifurcation: "The history of golf is actually a history of movement toward unification of playing and equipment rules--and this is more than ever true today, as golfers of different abilities from myriad geographies and cultures seek to play the same sport on a national and international basis, and soon in the Olympics."

A GolfDigest.com poll suggests the general public's initial perception of the rule may be as divisive as the leaders of the ruling bodies affirmed today. To the question, "If anchoring is banned by the ruling bodies, would you still do it if you felt it made you a better putter?" slightly more than half (54 percent) answered "yes."

The leading organizations that play by golf's rules have been just as divided on the issue. The European Tour and LPGA Tour have supported the rulemakers' authority to ban anchored putters, while PGA Tour Commissioner Tim Finchem made it clear that his players "did not think that banning anchoring was in the best interest of golf or the PGA Tour."

Whether the PGA Tour would choose to adopt the rule if it went through, Finchem said at the Players earlier this month: "When they complete this, we'll turn around and have a conversation with our players and our board about the position we should take."

The most strident opposition came from the PGA of America and its president Ted Bishop, who cited a poll of its membership conducted before the language in the proposed ruling was announced in which 63 percent opposed the anchor ban. Bishop maintained that imposing the ban would have a detrimental effect on the growth of the game. "Enhancing the enjoyment of the game is a personal thing to every golf professional," he told Golf Digest Stix in February. "We can't afford to lose one round of golf or one golfer."

The ruling bodies' explanation concludes with what in that light now sounds like an almost solemn wish: "We understand the concerns expressed by those who feel disadvantaged by this decision. We hope that, when the rule takes effect more than two and a half years from now, the lengthy transitional period and the vast variety of clubs, methods of stroke and playing styles that remain available will enable all golfers to move forward and continue to enjoy the fun and challenge of the game as before."

Follow @Mike Stachura

Keywords:

USGA president stands ground on bifurcation

Saturday, February 2, 2013

U.S. Golf Association President Glen D. Nager offered more than 4,000 words of far-ranging comment about the state of the game as he began his second term during the organization's annual meeting in California, but his most pointed may have been those directed at calls for the rules to be relaxed, divided or bifurcated into various sets of guidelines that would apply to different levels of competition or different levels of players. He did not equivocate.

An excerpt:

This year, I must unfortunately comment on an alternative view, recently advanced, that "easier" itself equates with "better" - specifically, that if only we would relax equipment and playing Rules to enable longer, straighter shots and lower scores, more people would enjoy and perhaps play the game. These assertions are sometimes coupled with a view that the USGA should preserve golf's Rules, traditions, and essential character only for professional and elite amateur players, while creating a separate set of relaxed Rules for recreational golfers. With all due respect, these calls to change the very nature of our wonderful game in a supposed effort to save it are misguided.

The argument that "easier is better" is premised on concerns about recent economics - and that fact alone should cause us to pause. There certainly are important issues for the golf industry to address, including economic issues, but revenue concerns arising during a broad economic slowdown should not lead us fundamentally to alter our approach to writing the Rules and defining the game. It is our obligation as a governing body to keep our eye on the long-term good of the game and to hold firm to what we know to be true about the essence of golf.

The underlying logic of "easier is better" is inexorably contrary to the game's very nature. Golf is a unique game of skill and challenge. The need for skill and the elements of the challenge are what define golf; they are in fact what have caused us to love the game for the past 600 years. The game tests us, vexes us, humbles us, and thrills us - so that, when our rounds are finished, we can't wait to tell our tales of triumph and woe; so that we search endlessly for the skills that will allow us to improve; so that we can't wait for our next chance to play; and so that we stand in awe of those who can play better than we can. For centuries, golfers have fervently embraced and celebrated the challenge of the game.

This enthusiastic embrace of the game as a stout test of skill and challenge prevails as strongly today as ever. In a recent study commissioned by the National Golf Foundation, passionate recreational golfers - that is, the golfers who play most of the rounds and who spend most of the money in golf - indicated that the challenge of the game is among the top reasons, if not the top reason, why they are so passionate about golf. Moreover, research among non-golfers, as well as lapsed golfers, indicates that the top three reasons that people do not take up golf, or quit the game, are reasons of expense, time, and the perception that golf is exclusionary and unwelcoming; the challenge of the game is nowhere near the top of the list of barriers to participation. These data strongly undermine the argument that making the game easier will grow participation. Golfers and potential golfers are in fact attracted by the challenge of the game; and calls for making the playing and equipment rules easier paradoxically would compromise and possibly destroy the game for them.

In arguing that "easier" itself equates with "better," some have pointed out that, in some other sports, such as football and baseball, there are some different rules for professionals and amateurs. The implication is that such sports have made their games easier to play for amateurs than for professionals, and that golf would benefit from doing so as well. But the argument is unsound.

There are a few differences between the rules for high school and collegiate football and professional football, such as whether a receiver need have only one foot or both feet in bounds for a reception. But the purpose and effect of such differences is not to make the game easier for amateurs; rather, the differences make it easier on the offensive player - but harder on the defensive player - or vice versa. Similarly, the differing rules permitting the use of metal bats in amateur baseball but not in the professional leagues prove nothing relevant for golf: Metal bats took hold in amateur baseball principally because they were more cost effective. But, after concerns deepened over time that metal bats were compromising safety and altering the game's balance between offense and defense, the amateur rule-making bodies in baseball took strong steps to regulate metal bats so that they have to perform comparably to wooden bats. Far from reflecting a bifurcated set of rules intended to make baseball easier for amateurs to play than for professionals, the metal bat experience shows that baseball is fundamentally baseball, whether played in the pros or in college or high school.

The analogies to rules in other sports also ignore a crucial difference that makes golf unique. In football, baseball, and similar sports, competition takes place in a contained league; players participating at one level generally do not play simultaneously at another level. Golf is wonderfully different: a single amateur golfer may simultaneously participate at virtually every level of the game. He or she may play in a national open alongside leading professionals; in elite national, regional or state amateur events; in school leagues or events; in club or inter-club championships; and in casual competition with players of the same or entirely different levels of ability. To create multiple sets of Rules for all these various levels of play would create confusion for competition organizers, players and officials alike, and would serve no purpose. Golf is a single game; that is part both of its unique appeal and its ability to grow as a global sport.

The argument that multiple sets of Rules are needed to accommodate players of differing skill levels is refuted by golf's long history and traditions. The history of golf is actually a history of movement toward unification of playing and equipment rules - as golfers of different abilities from myriad geographies and cultures seek to play the same sport on a national and international basis, and soon in the Olympics. Moreover, aided by the USGA, the game has long used two great innovations - multiple teeing grounds and the Handicap and Course Rating Systems - to enable people to play within their own physical abilities and yet also to compete against one another across ability levels, while playing each shot and each round by the same set of Rules. Creating multiple sets of Rules would undermine both these great traditions and the needs of modern golfing populations, as well as threaten the value and integrity of the Handicap System.

In the end, some advocates of an easier set of Rules for amateurs seem to believe that recreational golfers do not care about whether they are playing the same great game that they watch on television and are merely looking to have a generalized form of casual "fun" that is unconnected to the game's great traditions. Well, I am a recreational golfer, and I could not disagree more. Like many recreational golfers, I strive to master the skills of an elite golfer, which is why I take so many lessons, pound so many golf balls on the range, read every golf magazine and instructional manual I can find, buy the latest equipment and golf balls promoted by professional players, and savor the well-struck shot and occasional birdie so much more than my total score. I want to play the great courses that the legendary champions have played, in order to compare my performance with theirs - treasuring the fact that, on any given stroke, using the same equipment and following the same Rules, I may play as good a shot as the most elite player. The National Golf Foundation's data, as well as golf history, suggest that my perspective is representative of, rather than atypical of, many, many other recreational golfers.

With respect, therefore, I submit that easier for the sake of easier is plainly not better - at least not when we are talking about the playing and equipment rules for the game historically called "golf." In golf, we play the ball as it lies, however imperfectly it lies; we don't tee the ball up in the fairway or rough or play off of pristine artificial turf. We have to avoid hazards, play out of them, or accept a penalty in taking relief from them. We have to learn to control the ball; we do not allow golf balls that do not hook or slice. We have to count all of our strokes, not just the ones that we like. And, we have to call penalties on ourselves, and in so doing exhibit the honesty, integrity, and sportsmanship that are the hallmarks of the game. These complex challenges of the game are the game. To compromise them in a misconceived quest for "fun" would simply destroy the game that we love. Our task as rule makers is not to make the game easier or to make it harder, but rather to preserve and enhance the game's special and eternal qualities.

As I stated last year, and have reiterated today, the game of golf is facing real and complex challenges. But the answer is not to change the game. We should instead vigorously address the factors that we already know discourage golfers from enjoying or taking up the game - such as long golf courses that are unduly expensive to maintain; rough heights that make it difficult to find golf balls and slow down play; putting greens that are set up at speeds that are expensive to maintain and that slow down play; and indeed slow play itself. These issues and others like them are the challenges that we must carefully examine and address, with the confidence that we can identify solutions that will both protect the essence of our great game and foster a sustainable future. I hope that others will join us in this pursuit.

Keywords:

Odyssey offers 1st anchor alternative

Friday, November 30, 2012

By Mike Stachura

Just two days after golf's ruling bodies proposed a ban on the anchored style of putting, the No. 1 putter company in golf announced it was launching a line of putters designed to work within the letter of what could be the new law.

Odyssey will expand its Metal-X line of putters with two new versions of what it's calling the Arm Lock. The Arm Lock will feature specs optimized for an overlength putter with a grip designed to extend up the inside of the lead forearm. Available in both the popular two-pronged No. 7 and the D.A.R.T. mallet, the putter seems designed to utilize the style of putting employed currently by Matt Kuchar, a style specifically illustrated in Wednesday's press conference when the U.S. Golf Association and Royal & Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews announced the proposed ban on anchored strokes.

"At Odyssey we were adamant about offering alternative solutions to golfers who might change their current technique based on the recent anchoring proposal," said Austie Rollinson, Principal Designer, Odyssey Golf. "We have more Tour players around the world playing and winning with Odyssey putters than any other company; we worked closely with many of them to dial in the new Arm Lock Putters to ensure they perform at the highest level."

A key element of the putter, which features a specially weighted 400-gram head, is a four-degree forward lean on the shaft angle. The idea is to put the hands and body in a position to make the putter an extension of the left arm.

The Arm Lock Putter ($190) is expected to be available at retail in January.

Follow @Mike Stachura

Keywords:

USGA/R&A propose ban on anchored putting

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

By Mike Stachura

Golf's ruling bodies are ready to put an end to the style of putting that has been used by the winners of three of the last five major championships.

Less than a year after announcing they were going to take a fresh look at the topic, the U.S. Golf Association and the Royal & Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews announced a proposed rule change today that in 2016 would prohibit the anchored style of putting, the same style that was used by the winners of both the U.S. and British Open this year. The proposed rule would not ban belly or long putters, but it would ban any stroke where the grip or hand is anchored "directly" to any "anchor point" on the body.

The ruling bodies are seeking comment from golfers and the golf industry over the next three months before making a final decision. Assuming the timeline remains unchanged, the rule will be approved by both the USGA and the R&A this spring, and the anchored stroke ban would go into effect with the next official revision of the rules in January 2016.

"It's been a polarizing issue, and for many years you've had people who genuinely care about the game sit on both sides of it," USGA Executive Director Mike Davis told GolfDigest.com. "It's been fairly divisive and it's only gotten more so in the last year, but this decision gets back to the USGA and R&A feeling that fundamentally golf for 600 years has been about picking up the club, gripping it with two hands and making a free swing away from the body.

"We don't write rules to make the game easier, but we don't write rules to make the game harder, either. We write them to define the game, clarify the game, and in this case, the game has always been about swinging the club freely, and the anchored stroke is really a diversion from that."

Keywords:

Anchored putters: No decision right now

Thursday, June 21, 2012

Twitter's second definition should be "overstatement." Latest case in point was the recent back and forth yesterday over rumors that the Royal & Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews was about to make an announcement of a rule change regarding anchored or belly putters.

Well, there's journalism, and then there's "not exactly."

While there have been rumors from several and widely varied precincts on both sides of the pond, GolfDigest.com checked in this morning with both the R&A and the U.S. Golf Association. The word from both is there is no imminent news on this issue. Both the USGA and R&A announced previously they would be taking a fresh look at the question of anchored putting.

Webb Simpson's win in the U.S. Open has triggered inevitable speculation about the future of anchored putters. Photo by Walter Iooss, Jr.

In an e-mail this morning, David Rickman, Executive Director - Rules and Equipment Standards at the R&A, said, "I don't know what reports are circulating, but the final decision rests with the Rules committees of The R&A and USGA and, therefore, I wouldn't believe any reports from elsewhere. No decision has yet been made on this matter." Rickman noted that the R&A released a statement in April in which Chief Executive Peter Dawson said, "We appreciate that this is a complex and emotive issue that divides opinion. Any decision will be made with the best interests of the game in mind and introduced only after a lengthy period of notice."

In a phone conversation this morning, USGA Executive Director Mike Davis explained the way the R&A and USGA are looking at this issue, noting that Webb Simpson's use of a belly putter to win the U.S. Open last week would have "zero effect" on any decision by the ruling bodies.

"The reason we're taking our time on this is because we want to do our homework," he said. "In the history of the game, this is a new type of stroke, especially since so much has changed in the last 18 months in terms of what we're seeing at all levels of the game, including what junior golfers are doing and how some teachers are suggesting this might be a better way to putt.

"It really boils down to whether we believe this is the right thing for the future of the game."

Davis did offer a timeline, however. "I think we do owe the golf world some kind of answer before year's end," he said. "At this moment, though, there is no decision and no votes have been taken. Nothing's been decided."

Davis was clear that were there to be a decision on belly or long putting, it would not be an equipment rule but a rule looking at the stroke itself. As such, he said, it would not go into effect until the next formal revision of the Rules of Golf, which go into effect in 2016. It is believed that such a change would likely be preceded by a lengthy period alerting players of the change. In other words, it seems certainly possible that golf's ruling bodies could make an announcement two or even three years before a rule would go into effect.

Davis said golf's ruling bodies were gathering information from various sources, but that this decision will not be one driven by data from putting statistics on the PGA Tour.

"We do feel it's our responsibility to take another look at this because of the changes recently," he said. "We'd be shirking our responsibility if we didn't."

But it will be a philosophical decision more than anything, Davis said: "You certainly want input, but in the end, you have to do what you think is the right thing to do."

The hubbub apparently grew out of comments on the Teed Off show on PGA Tour Sirius XM Radio yesterday. This led to several tweets suggesting the R&A shortly would "issue a rule saying putter can be no longer than shortest club in a player's bag." That idea mirrors comments made by Tiger Woods in February in which he referenced conversations he had with the R&A's Dawson.

Of course, speculating on rules decisions is easy, even in 140 characters. Doing what's right for the future of the game? That's hard.

Mike Stachura

Follow me on Twitter @MikeStachura

Keywords:

New groove ideas not so easy

Thursday, February 23, 2012

Golf patents are a dangerous thing. And I'm not just talking about the lawsuits that ball companies might throw at one another over arcane language about the relative hardness of one cover versus another. I'm talking about patents that suggest something might be possible when it's clearly not.

Take for instance a new groove pattern patent issued to Bridgestone recently and detailed by the golf patent wizard Dave Dawsey at golf-patents.com. While the groove rule has produced a flurry of activity in ways to make the face somehow regain some of the potential lost spin brought about by the more restrictive groove guidelines that went into effect in 2010, that activity sometimes goes beyond what the rules allow.

Bridgestone's new pattern patent proposes to increase backspin by essentially extending the angle and the edges of the groove above the flat surfaces between grooves. Nifty? Yes. Unique? Probably? Conforming? Uhhh, no.

While it seems clear that the Bridgestone patent does well to cover the measurement specifications of the new rule regarding the width and volume of the grooves, the angle of the edges and the spacing between the grooves, it overlooks one key stipulaton. In the Rules of Golf, under section 5 (i) in Appendix II (Design of Clubs), there exists the phrase: "Grooves must not have sharp edges or raised lips." Even to an untrained eye like mine, these would appear to be raised lips.

This example is not meant to demean the effort of Bridgestone to make an effort to improve face performance. Their efforts are no less creative or thoroughly pursued than any other major manufacturer. It's inspiring, in a way, because it clearly shows how equipment companies aren't simply going through the motions to achieve some predetermined marketing objective. It does show, though, that the idea of a vast and easily accessible technology cornucopia of performance-enhancing workarounds to the groove restrictions aren't so easily achieved.

But it makes me wonder another thing, something that says a lot more about patents and the golf business than it says about USGA rules. If even I can tell this groove pattern is nonconforming, why would Bridgestone seek a patent? Is it a desire to pursue the manufacture and sale of non-conforming clubs? Is it a way of holding space in case there's a change in heart among golf's ruling bodies to loosen the rules for equipment for average golfers? Or is it something even more complex, the idea of patenting one fragment of an idea as depicted generally in this groove pattern that could be the foundation for some future product's features?

Bridgestone declined comment at this time on the patent.

As we've seen from the patent office before, a lot of ideas are possible (more patents are issued for golf than any other sport). Not a lot of them end up as fully formed products, though. Especially ones that are non-conforming. At least that's always been the case before.

--MIke Stachura

Follow me on Twitter @MikeStachura

Keywords:

Ping's Solheim: What to do about distance

Monday, December 19, 2011

John Solheim, chairman & CEO of Ping, believes golf's distance debate is about to heat up again, and he thinks he has an idea that might help cooler heads prevail.

With the PGA Tour driving distance average surging past the 290-yard barrier for the first time, Solheim is concerned about how golf's ruling bodies, the U.S. Golf Association and the Royal & Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews, might react.

John Solheim's proposal for dealing with distance surges would require three separate golf balls. Photo by Getty Images

"It worries me what might happen with our rulemakers when they see something and how they're going to react to it," Solheim said Friday in an exclusive interview with GolfDigest.com. "I wanted to put this idea out there to give them something to think about. This is an idea that works without bifurcation."

Solheim's proposal, which he has presented to manufacturers and sent to golf's ruling bodies, calls for changing from just one overall distance standard for all balls to a "ball distance rating," or BDR, system that would include three types of balls. The three balls in Solheim's proposal include one that is the same as today's current standard, a second ball that would be as much as 30 yards longer and a third ball that would produce distances 30 yards shorter than current balls. Courses, tournaments, tours and even individual players could choose their ball based on the course they're playing or the skill level of the players in the event. Solheim equated the BDR system to varying tee boxes. He envisioned a system which even might allow opportunities for average golfers playing their home course to have slower swingers using the longer-distance-standard ball while faster swingers would play the shorter-distance-standard ball with both players teeing off from the same marker. To make this work from a competitive standpoint Solheim suggested the handicap system incorporate a "ball rating" element. (Read the full proposal here)

Keywords:

USGA list shows new Callaway drivers

Monday, October 3, 2011

Those playing the golf club CSI game have another piece of hard evidence that Callaway Golf will get into the adjustable driver market fairly soon: Among the handful of drivers added to the USGA's list of Conforming Drivers in the last week are two from Callaway Golf, the RAZR X Black and the RAZR X Fit.

Of those two, the latter seems most intriguing for those wondering what Callaway plans to do with its driver line in 2012. The entry on the USGA's Conforming List describes the RAZR Fit as having a "weight screw" and a hosel with "orientation indicators." An attached photo of the RAZR Fit shows a sole with two weight screws (one in the heel and toe). The USGA listing of conforming drivers can be seen here.

Callaway representatives did not comment directly on the club, although it is believed that the club may be shown to some tour players at this week's Frys.com Open.

--Mike Stachura

Keywords:

How much longer? A lot and a little, I guess

Sunday, September 4, 2011

Geoff Shackelford, the H.L Mencken of golf bloggers and long the champion of those lamenting the distance creep in golf that has been an undercurrent since at least the days of Horace Hutchinson, raises a concern that the drivable par-4 4th at the TPC of Boston for this week's Deutsche Bank Championship is no longer an appropriate risk-reward challenge today "with modern distances surging in the five years since Gil Hanse and Brad Faxon unveiled this replacement hole."

So have they? Here's a breakdown of a few meaningful statistics since 2006.

STAT	2006	2011	Pct. Change
Driving Distance Avg.	288.6	291.1	+.087
No. of 300-yard hitters	20	24	+20.00
320+yard drives, pct.	8.61	9.56	+11.03
375-yard drives	274	117	-57.30
Driving Distance (All drives)	280.8	281.5	+0.25
Club Head Speed (2007)	112.18	112.55	+0.33
Ballspeed (2007)	165.09	166.39	+0.79
300+ yard drives, pct.	29.11	32.99	+13.33
No. of players below 285 avg.	60	42	-30.00
No. of players above 290 avg.	87	105	+20.69

Keywords:

Acushnet's Uihlein says argument can be made on both sides of bifurcation

Thursday, September 1, 2011

Golf's infamous b-word was raised again Wednesday by another equipment manufacturer. It's not surprising that bifurcation, the idea of separate rules for elite players and recreational players, is again being talked about by someone in the golf business. What might have been more than a little surprising was that the idea was raised by Acushnet CEO Wally Uihlein, a long-time critic of the idea.

Uihlein was responding to a question about the state of relations between golf's manufacturers and its rulemakers, the U.S. Golf Association and the Royal & Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews, at a press conference introducing Gene Yoon, head of Fila Korea and the leader of the investor group that acquired Acushnet from Fortune Brands earlier this year. While he clearly did not openly endorse the idea, he did not dismiss it entirely.

"Obviously, there are issues about the growth of the game and people who think the rules are either too restraining or need to be bifurcated," he said. "That's a fairly open-ended question depending upon your viewpoint, and I can make an argument for or against bifurcating the rules."

A decade ago, while golf's manufacturers and golf's rulemakers waged war over spring-like effect in drivers, Uihlein made no such equivocation, telling the British magazine Golf Monthly:

"We have never supported the position of bifurcation. ...Bifurcation is only seriously advanced by those who think that the game is on some edge of ruination and thus as a result of their narrow and biased thinking feel some form of radical surgery is required."

Keywords: