"When you roll it back, it will not only prejudice the performance of the players, it will also prejudice the patent portfolios of one company over another."

John Huggan's recently surfaced April chat with Wally Uihlein continues with part two and more ball talk.

JH:  What can the rules makers do that would not provoke litigation?

WU: You would have to go in and buy up all the patents and put them into the public domain so that everyone can practice them on a paid-up license. Then, whatever specification changes they came up with, no one would have any legal downside consequences. That’s the reality. And that is the element of the discourse that has never been acknowledged by anyone in the media.

This is not about private sector versus public sector. It is not about private sector versus regulatory bodies. When you roll it back, it will not only prejudice the performance of the players, it will also prejudice the patent portfolios of one company over another.

Hmmm...this couldn't be related to a certain bit of litigation, could it?

We are dealing with multi-million dollar investments. So it’s not just about the sensibilities of those who profess to care about the game and them questioning why we wouldn’t support that view. It’s not that simple. It’s almost like it is beyond our control. When I get into a court—and they have little to do with truth, justice, and reason—they are 80 percent about theater. It comes down to who has the best trial lawyer.

Unless the regulatory bodies are prepared to create a super-fund, buy up all those patents, and tell us all what balls we can make, nothing is going to change.

So the courts and trial lawyers are the ones we should be blaming, not the personal trainers who made the guys longer?

How did the groove rule change slip by everyone then?

JH:  I watched Geoff Ogilvy using an old Toney Penna 3-wood at Kingston Heath last year. He hit it beautifully and I asked him if he would consider using it in a tournament. His reaction was, “Wally may not like that.”

WU: No one likes to be singled out as the whipping post.

JH: He only used your name because he is contracted to Cobra.

WU: But I’m the whipping post of technology. But I only adopt that role because the equipment can’t speak for itself.

Someone has to speak for the vulnerable...pieces of synthetic materials sitting on store shelves. You go Wally!

JH:  Another leading question: who does the best job of running golf—the R&A, the USGA, the PGA of America, or the PGA Tour? Or are you running golf? I’ve accused you of that before.

WU:  I know you have. And when you do that, you hit on a key issue. There is no global czar. Unfortunately, golf is lacking that. Which is good and bad. The good part is that we have a number of parties who should be working together to protect the game. You’ll notice I said “protect” rather than “grow” or whatever.  I don’t think the manufacturers are running the game. I do think the professional game has become golf’s chamber of commerce. We have to be careful not to confuse the professional game—which is entertainment—with the game that we all play.  There is a big gap between the amateur and professional games.

Then let's bifurcate! Oh wait...you're against that too. Sorry, continue...

But the latter is an entertainment. Which is why we pitch our advertising the way we do. We don’t have players saying, “I play this, you should too.” We’re not saying you should use our equipment just because the professionals do. But we want you to take note of the fact that so many do.  Now, that may make us a little anachronistic.

Anachronistic wasn't quite the word I had in mind...

But we take the view that their using Titleist is a pretty good endorsement of the quality of our products. Professionals don’t use stuff that isn’t going to make them play better.  Marketing approaches can go into one of two buckets: the “how many” or the “who?” Most companies employ a “who” strategy. We go the other way. They are different messages. “How many” is more subliminal and sophisticated.  But you are never going to get me to agree that the manufacturers are running the industry. Not when I’ve just sat with the ruling bodies today and told them I am out $1 million in capital expenses, and $400- to 500,000 per year, because we are coming out of the most activist phase in the history of the regulatory landscape.

You know I look at Dick Rugge, Jim Vernon, Jim Hyler or Jay Rains and think, "activist."

JH: Will the players all go to higher-spinning balls in the wake of this change?

WU: Take it to the bank. As I said, their first request will be that we get back half the spin they have lost with a softer ball, leaving them free to determine how much distance they are prepared to lose. It’s a balancing act.  Their next stop, of course, will be to the driver guy. They’ll be asking how much of that distance they can get back with longer shafts or whatever. Don’t worry though. This game will never be mastered, even if it beguiles us into thinking it can be. Which is where we come in.

Hey, instead of looking to some tech guy for improvement, how about a little love for the beleaguered instructors of the world? Like your good buddy Kostis!