Question:

I can’t believe this thread took this strange turn. People, people, people… Don’t you get it?  The fact that everyone has different equipment only tends to level the playing field so that their SKILLS become the deciding factor, NOT their equipment. You put the same club in your hands and my hands and one of us is liable to have a decided advantage.  Not because of our relative skill, but because both our swings won’t match up the same with the equipment. Suddenly you’ve made THE EQUIPMENT more of a deciding factor in who can perform. And surely you don’t want THAT!!! You want the SKILLS of the players to decide who’s best each week. The rules are uniform now…every player has the freedom to use whatever equipment he or she wants, as long as it is conforming to the Rules of Golf.  That’s all the standardization you need.  And it’s all the standardization you WANT, unless you want to put some players at a disadvantage because they don’t swing a certain WAY. Then again, I guess some people would like to see a TOUR of Stepford golfers.  That’s what you’d get if you made everybody swing the same set of clubs.  In order to perform, they’d each have to swing the same way. That’s just silly. Randy

Response:

Well, I dont agree with making everybody’s equipment the same one should be able to choose clubs based on their game (I would rather they go back to Wood woods though) . I DO like the idea of a tourney ball (Might be kinda hard to do, I can hit a tour ballata farther than a Distance ball), But there is no reason to make them Brand X, As long as Titleist, Topflight, Slazenger, Bridgestone all follow the PGA, USGA Guidelines. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –    I really like the idea.. I just read in the latest issue of GOLF an article about taking some of the distance off the golf balls used in tourneys… they argue it would bring parity to the game 7 allow some players that hit the ball further because of thier ability to excel.    How about this…. when you make the tour everybody goes to the tour club makers … all are fitted but they all get basically the same clubs.. just sized for them.. They choose which cludes they want … or maybe they all get a full set & use the ones they like.  Then when they get to the tournment.. they get x dozen balls…. all the same …. now … let the best player win… wouldn’t that really show who was the best? I suppose some tourney’s could be "open" … I’d like to hear some of the players debate this idea.. I mean if I’m Tiger and I think I’m better than you… then I should be a better  player…. not better equipped — Kevin Wandtke

Response:

The USGA should put maximum bounds on equipment and balls.  Each player should choose legal equipment that fits his game.  That’s fair.

It would still be interesting to see a few IROC style tourneys. I would probably allow the player to use their own putter though.

Response:

Every player get to chose their own equipment from the USGA’s list of conforming clubs and balls. A part of being a professional is selecting the equipment that works best for you. If you cannot make that determination yourself then you probably don’t belong on the Tour. BTW, price is not an object for tour players. All of their clubs are custom fitted if they desire and if you are sponsored by a club maker they will make conforming clubs to your specifications if you wish. Good Golf Dan – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –     I really like the idea.. I just read in the latest issue of GOLF an article about taking some of the distance off the golf balls used in tourneys… they argue it would bring parity to the game 7 allow some players that hit the ball further because of thier ability to excel.     How about this…. when you make the tour everybody goes to the tour club makers … all are fitted but they all get basically the same clubs.. just sized for them.. They choose which cludes they want … or maybe they all get a full set & use the ones they like.  Then when they get to the tournment.. they get x dozen balls…. all the same …. now … let the best player win… wouldn’t that really show who was the best? I suppose some tourney’s could be "open" … I’d like to hear some of the players debate this idea.. I mean if I’m Tiger and I think I’m better than you… then I should be a better  player…. not better equipped — Kevin Wandtke

Response:

I meant to say "Ping" was at the center of the … Michael S. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The USGA publishes perscribed limits as to all equipment used.  And it was at the center of the groove controversy years ago. Michael S. I also think it would be refreshing to see them use the same equipment. But doesn’t someone already oversee equipment such that they’re pretty much all the same? Wasn’t there a groove controversy not long ago that tested the ‘illegal” equipment rule? As an aside, the Professional Putters Association’s (miniature golf) rules allowed for a few different types of balls which could be changed between holes of a tournament. This was a decided advantage (trust me on that one.) After some of these balls were discontinued, they were impossible to purchase. A black market in obsolete golf balls occurred. A single golf ball could sell for as much as $50! Subsequently, the rules were changed to prohibit all but a single ball, which cannot be changed between holes. I guess the moral of the story might be that standardization eliminates a mental aspect of the game. Part of the test of golf is to select the right equipment. Call it homework or practice, but time, energy and thought must go into selecting which 14 clubs are right to brg out the best in a player. David

Response:

The USGA publishes perscribed limits as to all equipment used.  And it was at the center of the groove controversy years ago. Michael S. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I also think it would be refreshing to see them use the same equipment. But doesn’t someone already oversee equipment such that they’re pretty much all the same? Wasn’t there a groove controversy not long ago that tested the ‘illegal” equipment rule? As an aside, the Professional Putters Association’s (miniature golf) rules allowed for a few different types of balls which could be changed between holes of a tournament. This was a decided advantage (trust me on that one.) After some of these balls were discontinued, they were impossible to purchase. A black market in obsolete golf balls occurred. A single golf ball could sell for as much as $50! Subsequently, the rules were changed to prohibit all but a single ball, which cannot be changed between holes. I guess the moral of the story might be that standardization eliminates a mental aspect of the game. Part of the test of golf is to select the right equipment. Call it homework or practice, but time, energy and thought must go into selecting which 14 clubs are right to brg out the best in a player. David

Response:

I also think it would be refreshing to see them use the same equipment. But doesn’t someone already oversee equipment such that they’re pretty much all the same? Wasn’t there a groove controversy not long ago that tested the ‘illegal” equipment rule? As an aside, the Professional Putters Association’s (miniature golf) rules allowed for a few different types of balls which could be changed between holes of a tournament. This was a decided advantage (trust me on that one.) After some of these balls were discontinued, they were impossible to purchase. A black market in obsolete golf balls occurred. A single golf ball could sell for as much as $50! Subsequently, the rules were changed to prohibit all but a single ball, which cannot be changed between holes. I guess the moral of the story might be that standardization eliminates a mental aspect of the game. Part of the test of golf is to select the right equipment. Call it homework or practice, but time, energy and thought must go into selecting which 14 clubs are right to brg out the best in a player. David

Response:

    I really like the idea.. I just read in the latest issue of GOLF an article about taking some of the distance off the golf balls used in tourneys… they argue it would bring parity to the game 7 allow some players that hit the ball further because of thier ability to excel.     How about this…. when you make the tour everybody goes to the tour club makers … all are fitted but they all get basically the same clubs.. just sized for them.. They choose which cludes they want … or maybe they all get a full set & use the ones they like.  Then when they get to the tournment.. they get x dozen balls…. all the same …. now … let the best player win… wouldn’t that really show who was the best? I suppose some tourney’s could be "open" … I’d like to hear some of the players debate this idea.. I mean if I’m Tiger and I think I’m better than you… then I should be a better  player…. not better equipped

I don’t agree with this at all.  Chosing equipment and balls that match their game is part of what makes great golfers great.   they argue it would bring parity to the game 7 allow some players that hit the ball further because of thier ability to excel.

This is realy a bad idea.  You want to prevent people with the ability to excel from excelling?   Being long off the tee *should* be an advantage.  So should the ability to putt lights out,  chip like the devil, and strike your irons pure as snow.   The USGA should put maximum bounds on equipment and balls.  Each player should choose legal equipment that fits his game.  That’s fair. Jerome

Response:

    I really like the idea.. I just read in the latest issue of GOLF an article about taking some of the distance off the golf balls used in tourneys… they argue it would bring parity to the game 7 allow some players that hit the ball further because of thier ability to excel.     How about this…. when you make the tour everybody goes to the tour club makers … all are fitted but they all get basically the same clubs.. just sized for them.. They choose which cludes they want … or maybe they all get a full set & use the ones they like.  Then when they get to the tournment.. they get x dozen balls…. all the same …. now … let the best player win… wouldn’t that really show who was the best? I suppose some tourney’s could be "open" … I’d like to hear some of the players debate this idea.. I mean if I’m Tiger and I think I’m better than you… then I should be a better  player…. not better equipped — Kevin Wandtke

Response:

 I agree with the USGA, I just wish they would have parameters that were equal. No caddies only pullcarts, no coaches at the Tournament, no special clubs from manufacturers, everyone stays in a dorm and eats cafeteria style. Just like a lot of posters feel you shouldn’t get to play with the use of lawyers, maybe you shouldn’t play with the use of all the extra tools the rich players can buy. Is it IROC where the race cars are setup equal and the drivers get the cars by random? That might be nice for the national championship, all equal sets of clubs, same balls, and no maps of the greens. Sort of like the traditions of golf we all like.  Golf as a game for individuals and not corporate golf might make a nice change. Mitch Alderman

Son of a gun, a liberal with a good idea! Mitch, you’re an inspiration! IGOC International Golf Of Champions Hey Mitch, just as the IROC cars still have their seats fitted to the driver (seat’s distance to the pedals and steering wheel), would you allow the shaft length to be fitted to each player, and then tune the shaft flex and swing weight to balance out with the others? … or am I gonna have to sue your ass to have this size thing made right by the courts? Steve

Response:

 I agree with the USGA, I just wish they would have parameters that were equal. No caddies only pullcarts, no coaches at the Tournament, no special clubs from manufacturers, everyone stays in a dorm and eats cafeteria style. Just like a lot of posters feel you shouldn’t get to play with the use of lawyers, maybe you shouldn’t play with the use of all the extra tools the rich players can buy. Is it IROC where the race cars are setup equal and the drivers get the cars by random? That might be nice for the national championship, all equal sets of clubs, same balls, and no maps of the greens. Sort of like the traditions of golf we all like.  Golf as a game for individuals and not corporate golf might make a nice change. Mitch Alderman – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The USGA, citing the federal court’s ruling in the Casey Martin versus the PGA TOUR case earlier this year agreed to provide accomodation to Mr. Martin at the U.S. Open at Olympic Club. Upon Casey’s return home, he found a 40-page legal brief waiting for him.  The USGA filed the brief in support of the PGA TOUR, which is presently appealing the court’s earlier ruling. A spokesman for the USGA said that they have been consistent all along, and told the Associated Press that it is the USGA’s position that "we feel the courts should not set the parameters of our national championship, and we feel those parameters should be equal for everybody." The spokesman stated that the USGA did not agree with the federal ruling, but "right now, it’s the law of the land." "We were not going to force him to take us to court and go through it all over again," he said. Stay tuned.  This ain’t over. Randy

Response:

The USGA, citing the federal court’s ruling in the Casey Martin versus the PGA TOUR case earlier this year agreed to provide accomodation to Mr. Martin at the U.S. Open at Olympic Club. Upon Casey’s return home, he found a 40-page legal brief waiting for him.  The USGA filed the brief in support of the PGA TOUR, which is presently appealing the court’s earlier ruling. A spokesman for the USGA said that they have been consistent all along, and told the Associated Press that it is the USGA’s position that "we feel the courts should not set the parameters of our national championship, and we feel those parameters should be equal for everybody." The spokesman stated that the USGA did not agree with the federal ruling, but "right now, it’s the law of the land." "We were not going to force him to take us to court and go through it all over again," he said. Stay tuned.  This ain’t over. Randy

Response: