“I suggested to (R&A chief executive) Peter Dawson yesterday maybe we should introduce some kind of scheme along the lines of that which we have with historic buildings in this country,”

Tony Jimenez tells us about Paul Casey pulling aside R&A secretary Peter Dawson with a little advice to prevent the Wentworthization of classic courses by giving them the same status as listed historic buildings.

“I suggested to (R&A chief executive) Peter Dawson yesterday maybe we should introduce some kind of scheme along the lines of that which we have with historic buildings in this country,” Casey told reporters on the eve of the PGA Championship.

“(For instance) Ernie’s beautiful house by the 16th hole with the thatched roof and the (superb) plaster work. He owns it but that doesn’t give him the right to paint it pink and put a tin roof on it.

“When you’re an owner of a Grade II listed building it’s much like you’re the caretaker for the next generation… (similarly) if you’re the owner of a golf course does it give you the right to make the changes you want?

“Is that in the best interests of that particular course or for golf in general?”, added the world number eight.

The Briton went on to suggest the rule-making R&A could play a role in protecting venues.

Uh Paul...don't go there.

“I think we need to keep courses in as good a condition as we can… but maybe (owners) need to go through a procedure to make sure these changes are in line,” said the 32-year-old.

“Maybe that’s something that would have to go through the R&A… along the lines of listing golf courses.”

Okay just one question for Casey. Was Peter Dawson nervously twitching, sweating or otherwise behaving oddly as you told him this?

Just curious. After all, he's going around to the Open venues and...altering them!

Somehow I'm guessing the irony was lost on young Paul, but he gets major points for a wonderful idea. He's just talking to the wrong folks.

"We'd be foolish not to consider it, although it is extremely controversial."

E. Michael Johnson raises all sorts of interesting questions in considering whether manufacturers should offer non-conforming lines of equipment. 

"We've looked extensively at possibilities in the nonconforming category," said Nate Radcliffe, metalwoods development manager for Cleveland Golf. "We'd be foolish not to consider it, although it is extremely controversial."

It's a category?

Now, 10 years later, might Callaway revisit nonconforming clubs? "Some think we may be likely to go down that path," said Dr. Alan Hocknell, Callaway's senior VP of research & development, "but one thing we hold highly at this company is authenticity. Playing by the rules is perhaps the most authentic part of golf. I'd say we're more likely to stay inside the rules than go outside them."

Which isn't to say Callaway hasn't looked at the landscape. Hocknell said the company has done consumer research and found golfers split on the topic. Then there's the business aspect. Any company entering the nonconforming arena is likely to be branded by its competition as making clubs for cheaters. "To have our brand positioned that way would be a huge risk," said Hocknell.

Two questions. Do you think this is a good idea for the game and would it be wise for manufacturers to go down this path?

It doesn't bother me much since the game is bifurcated with the groove rule change and if nothing else, just think, we wouldn't have to listen to the manufacturers whine about the big, bad USGA impacting quarterly profit margins!

"This (new grooves rule) isn’t going to wipe the mustard off their red, white and blue ties or brush the dandruff off their navy blue sport coats. They are not living up to their responsibility."

Randall Mell posts an entertaining Q&A with Tom Weiskopf on a variety of topics ranging from Torrey Pines to his possible return to the booth at the Open Championship again. But he didn't hold back on the topic of the new groove rule.

I don’t know if the V-groove definition today is identical to the V grooves I played with in the 60s, 70s and 80s. But it is a copout, in my estimation. They aren’t addressing the problem. It is a way for the USGA to get around the ball issue. They lost that groove ruling (to Ping) in court. The USGA and the R&A have a responsibility to protect the skills of the game that the players possess. It’s in their rule book. Consequently, they are definitely afraid of another lawsuit. The major issue is the golf ball. It goes too far. They won’t address that because if they go to court they’ll lose it.

Do you think the USGA and R&A are living up to their responsibilities?
 
No, I don’t think so. What happened was their technology wasn’t as good as the manufacturers. So the manufacturers turned the definition of rules concerning equipment to the finest line they could. It got away from the USGA and R&A. The ball got away from them. I could go on and talk about this, which I have.
 
The ball is still the issue. It’s the No. 1 component and element of the game that’s transformed scoring since the feathery golf ball. Go through time, it’s been the golf ball. This (new grooves rule) isn’t going to wipe the mustard off their red, white and blue ties or brush the dandruff off their navy blue sport coats. They are not living up to their responsibility. They are afraid of a lawsuit.
 
Let’s get a tournament ball, every manufacturer can make it and let’s go on with life. Then we won’t have to build these golf courses that are 7,500 or 7,600 yards where nobody but the best who play the game can play them. They’ve eliminated so many classic golf courses from competition.

USGA/R&A: You Can Keep Your Silly Little Distance Measuring Device

Though I'm not sure about this clarification on GPS-enabled phones/PDA's:

3.     Multi-functional devices such as mobile phones, PDAs, etc (i.e., devices that are primarily communication devices, but which may have other potential uses) may be used as follows:

·         The device may be used for any non-golfing purpose (e.g., as a communication tool to phone, text or email), subject to any club/course regulations and the rules on accessing advice-related matters – see Decision 14-3/16.

·         When the local rule is in effect, a distance-measuring application may be used, provided the specific application is restricted to “distance only” and the device does not have any other “non-conforming” features. This is the case even if these other features are not being used. As above, the rules on advice-related communications (including the use of the internet) still apply.

So this rules out the new iphone GPS app when the local rule is in effect?

R&A Contemplating Out-Of-Bounds Tee For Road Hole

Earlier this week it was noted here (courtesy of Trevor Immelman's Tweet) that the Road Hole still features a silly roadblock of rough about 310 yards off the tee.

Now we learn this from John Hopkins' Spike Bar column:

An intriguing whisper was circulating in St Andrews recently. The Royal and Ancient have asked a leading player his thoughts on the positioning of a new tee on the 17th, the famous Road Hole. The tee would be 40 yards back from the existing one and therefore over the fence, which used to be the line of the old railway line from Leuchars. Clearly, the 2010 Open, the 150th anniversary of the event next July, is on the minds of the R&A.

First, as a blogger who has made a study of the R&A's emasculation of rota courses in place of regulating distance, this one will be particularly fun since it's only the most famous hole in golf.

Second, isn't it a bit late in the game to be scouting out a possible new tee for a major that is only ninth months away? Particularly when the tee in question will be off the property and driving over a stone wall and a billboard for the Old Course hotel? I can only imagine how tastefully it will erupt out of the landscape.

At least we know the R&A has experience now with this hole off-course tee thing when it went over so well last time in 2005 when they couldn't really figure out the whole OB thing on No. 2.