"The grounds for litigation would only be absence of due process. It wouldn’t be the result."

An interview of Acushnet CEO Wally Uihlein by John Huggan has surfaced on GolfObserver.com, which means you'll get some snazzy early 90s Photoshopping and plenty of Titleist-supplied shots of site sponsor Uihlein. But that's where the fluff ends.

For those of us who think the technology debate is important, this is the must read of all must reads.

I'm taken by what seems to be a softening of Acushnet's position and can only wonder if the Fairhaven-based manufacturer's mostly conservative, old school, traditionalist customer base that somehow still buys Foot Joy Classics has let it be known that they weren't wild with the company position. You know, the one that says technology was sacred and if great golf courses existed to be altered in the chase for maximized margins over the values of the game.

Anyway, the highlights from Part I. Uihlein on the governing bodies and regulating:

There has been an imbalance there. Anecdotally, we used to dread the last round of the U.S. Open. The president of the USGA would walk with the leading group, which frequently contained an outspoken player like Jack Nicklaus, and so we could confidently predict the content of the commentary for the next 60-90 days.

Uh reader Wally, Jack Nicklaus in the last group of the U.S. Open? Let's at least try to find an anti-technology anarchist who contended in the Open during the later years of the Reagan administration.

Now this was funny, and based on Peter Dawson's propensity to say strange things, totally believable:

This morning we met with Peter Dawson [chief executive of the R&A] on the groove issue. I asked Peter which players he talks to for feedback. His response was, “just Tiger.” Anyone else? “Sometimes Vijay.”

The end result is that there is no balance, with voices from a number of constituencies represented: young, old, high-skilled, low-skilled,

Alright, alright, you're all about democracy.

JH: I’ve never understood why you care about the R&A and the USGA knocking, say, 30 yards off the ball for the elite players when the average guy would lose maybe two or three yards and not even notice. I don’t see that affecting your bottom line.

WU: That’s a fair assumption. We’re actually more comfortable dealing with percentages. Let’s say they wanted to reduce drives by 10 percent. The leading driver on the PGA Tour is something like 312 yards on average. And last year Trevor Immelman was 150th in driving at 274 yards. So Bubba Watson goes to (around) 280 yards and Trevor goes to (around) 240.

Works for me! And definitely works better for most golf courses. So...

JH: But what difference does that make to your bottom line?

WU: It’s a fair question. But there is no instance in any sport where there has been a rollback of the instruments used.

Oops! That was April, this is now and we have new groove rules. That's a rollback. Oh and it's bifurcation too.

Track and field isn’t going back to bamboo poles for the pole vault. So there is no precedent.

Let's not forget tennis, where Wimbledon has slowed down the ball and insiders whisper that the ball has been tweaked in other tournament play, though no one will admit to it.

JH: I’m speaking as a life-long golfer here. None of what you have said so far is going to make any difference to the ball I buy and play with. I’m still going to buy a Titleist.

WU: I can’t say I disagree with you. We’re not that intransigent.

JH: So what’s the problem then? If the R&A and the USGA knocked 15 percent off the ball tomorrow, would you sue them?

WU: The grounds for litigation would only be absence of due process. It wouldn’t be the result. It would be a why are you doing that? Which would leave the burden on us to prove that by doing that they were affecting our business. 
There is a fine line between the rulers and those who are ruled upon. We are prepared to be ruled upon as long as there is due process and as long as those rules do not influence the commercial landscape.

So the "commercial landscape" is part of due process!

JH: So whatever they do, someone will get hurt?

WU: Yes. And they will sue. And that is the untold story. Trust me, it boggles the minds of our shareholders.

Those poor shareholders, having to deal with people who don't put profit above all else!

It boggles my mind as a businessman that the golf ball category—which is only $1 billion in wholesale—has 2,000 patents in this decade. It makes no sense. We’re talking about a regulated product category. We’re talking about a category where weight, size, velocity, and distance are already capped and there are 2,000 new golf ball patents in less than 10 years? It makes no sense.

True. It makes no sense to go through all of that patenting and categorizing when we could just firm up those specs and save everyone the headache!