Question:
THE NEW CALLAWAY E.R.C DRIVER IS AVAILABLE IN OUR WEB SITE THE E.R.C IS NOT AVAILABLE IN USA ONLY IN EUROPE AND JAPAN PRICE : US$ 615 orders : www.golfplus.fr * Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
Response:
…does not conform to USGA rules.
Response:
The E.R.C is not conform to USGA rules but conform to ST Endrew rules – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – …does not conform to USGA rules.
Response:
<< …does not conform to USGA rules. … and according to my Callaway rep they have no intention of submitting it for approval because they don’t think it conforms.
Response:
<< …does not conform to USGA rules. … and according to my Callaway rep they have no intention of submitting it for approval because they don’t think it conforms.
In fact, they’ve already submitted it, and got it back — someone at Callaway said they’d never seen anything come back from the USGA so fast. To no one’s surprise, it was ruled non-conforming for exceeding the USGA’s standard for "spring-like" effect. Since the USGA made their announcement two years ago about "spring-like" effect, things have been pretty quiet on that front. Too quiet. Methinks we haven’t heard the last of it. Randy
Response:
"Frostback" wrote … Callaway can’t really litigate this successfully, IMHO, as the spring like effect rules have been out for a while, and this is an area where such an organization does have some right to set rules as it sees fit, but you never know.
No, you never do. And so far as I know, this has never been decided in court. I believe all the lawsuits brought to court challenging the USGA’s authority to govern equipment specifications have been settled out of court, and for good reason. It’s not like the USGA is governing an *organization.* They’re actually setting rules of competition for a game, and there’s really no organization they’re responsible for. This is quite different than, say, the NCAA setting the rules of college athletics, which they are clearly within their rights to do since all schools that are governed by NCAA rules are voluntary members of the NCAA. But the USGA has no governance over the competition, other than the fact that most tournaments *choose to* abide by their rules. There’s a parallel in bowling. The ABC (American Bowling Congress) sets the standards for all things bowling, from the spots where the pins are set to the weight tolerances on balls to the distance from the foul line the arrows must be placed to the width of the gutters, etc. But they have no real legal authority over *the game* per se. If people want to conduct a competition that is not sanctioned by ABC, then that’s their right. The same is true for golf. It seems to me the only time the USGA really has any real legal authority is when it’s overseeing its own competitions. The reason why non-conforming equipment doesn’t sell is because there’s not much of a market for non-conforming equipment. Most players want to play with equipment that could be used in tournaments. And although most tournaments don’t HAVE TO, most DO abide by USGA rules. If this were to go to court, it could get really interesting. I hope it doesn’t. But if it did, it could set golf on its ear in ways that would make us forget all about Casey Martin. Randy
Response:
They already did, and it doesn’t
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – << …does not conform to USGA rules. … and according to my Callaway rep they have no intention of submitting it for approval because they don’t think it conforms.
Response:
The trouble is that the USGA is just winging it when it decides what the definition of "spring-like effect" is. I really don’t see the USGA winning that lawsuit, should it come to pass. -joseph "Frostback" wrote … Callaway can’t really litigate this successfully, IMHO, as the spring like effect rules have been out for a while, and this is an area where such an organization does have some right to set rules as it sees fit, but you never know. No, you never do. And so far as I know, this has never been decided in court. I believe all the lawsuits brought to court challenging the USGA’s authority to govern equipment specifications have been settled out of court, and for good reason. It’s not like the USGA is governing an *organization.*
[...]
Response:
Callaway can’t really litigate this successfully, IMHO, as the spring like effect rules have been out for a while, and this is an area where such an organization does have some right to set rules as it sees fit, but you never know. Rob – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – << …does not conform to USGA rules. … and according to my Callaway rep they have no intention of submitting it for approval because they don’t think it conforms. In fact, they’ve already submitted it, and got it back — someone at Callaway said they’d never seen anything come back from the USGA so fast. To no one’s surprise, it was ruled non-conforming for exceeding the USGA’s standard for "spring-like" effect. Since the USGA made their announcement two years ago about "spring-like" effect, things have been pretty quiet on that front. Too quiet. Methinks we haven’t heard the last of it. Randy
– RSG Rollcall: http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/hamiltonr.htm
Response:
If this were to go to court, it could get really interesting. I hope it doesn’t. But if it did, it could set golf on its ear in ways that would make us forget all about Casey Martin.
It’s very unlikely to end up in court…Calaway would have to alledge that the the club DOES conform and that the USGA was guilty of deciteful evaluation… Producing the club has other compensations for Calaway tho… It’s a great publicity gimmick and enhances their name recognition. Also there are probably enough users of outlaw balls, wedges, etc. to make the club at least a break-even proposition. As I think you noted…USGA rules and standards are used at the option of the participants and sponsors…Nothing actionable about that. I thought everyone had already forgotten about Casey Martin… How much $$$ has he WON so far…? ]]]Z[[[
Response:
The trouble is that the USGA is just winging it when it decides what the definition of "spring-like effect" is. I really don't see the USGA winning that lawsuit, should it come to pass.
As long as they do uniform testing...it's whatever they measure it as. AND I imagine there are all kinds of "Hold Harmless" clauses that are agreed to before the USGA tests anything...There isn't going to BE any lawsuit... ]]]Z[[[
Response:
The trouble is that the USGA is just winging it when it decides what the definition of "spring-like effect" is. I really don’t see the USGA winning that lawsuit, should it come to pass. As long as they do uniform testing…it’s whatever they measure it as. AND I imagine there are all kinds of "Hold Harmless" clauses that are agreed to before the USGA tests anything…There isn’t going to BE any lawsuit…
That may be, but my guess is that Callaway and other manufacturers will get their thin-faced drivers approved and grandfathered by the USGA, because it looks like the gnomes are still fiddling around trying to decide what’s legal and what isn’t. Callaway obviously has a plan, but we’ve just seen the first leg of it. :-) Personally, I don’t see anything wrong with thin-faced drivers, as long as they don’t break. So what if they hit the ball longer. Where’s the wide open golf course where I can take advantage of 300 yard drives all the time? On your average desert track I can’t hit my driver more than 4-6 times a round. It’s not as if hitting the ball farther makes the game immensely easier for the recreational golfer, but it does have the potential to make it more fun. Well, maybe if I could get a thin-faced 2 wood that could carry about 280, some of those cross-bunkered holes would seem more user friendly. :-) -joseph
Response:
No, you never do. And so far as I know, this has never been decided in court. I believe all the lawsuits brought to court challenging the USGA’s authority to govern equipment specifications have been settled out of court, and for good reason. It’s not like the USGA is governing an *organization.* They’re actually setting rules of competition for a game, and there’s really no organization they’re responsible for. This is quite different than, say, the NCAA setting the rules of college athletics, which they are clearly within their rights to do since all schools that are governed by NCAA rules are voluntary members of the NCAA. But the USGA has no governance over the competition, other than the fact that most tournaments *choose to* abide by their rules.
That’s the thing, isn’t it? No one HAS to abide by USGA rules, they CHOOSE to. Callway may have to challenge each golf tournament independently if they want to litigate. Maybe it’s time the USGA stood up on such an issue. Rob
Response:
In fact, they’ve already submitted it, and got it back — someone at Callaway said they’d never seen anything come back from the USGA so fast. To no one’s surprise, it was ruled non-conforming for exceeding the USGA’s standard for "spring-like" effect.
And I suspect Callaway won’t be in any big rush to contest it, Randy. From what I’ve read the driver is a big seller in Japan, where the vast majority of "golfers" hit at the driving range and never make it onto a course. Until they’re outlawed at driving ranges, I suspect they’ll continue to sell well. — Don Porter Newspaper Reporter & Webmaster Web Page: http://www.datacruz.com/~dporter