Other Evidence

    The USGA has collected an enormous amount of data through the handicap system about the rest of us who play the game. I don't have access to their data banks, but there are bits and pieces of information from other sources like the National Golf Foundation.

What is the average golfer's score and has it changed much over the years?

NGF research shows that only 22% of all golfers regularly score better than 90 for 18 holes on a regulation length course. For females, the percentage drops to 7%...and for males, it goes up to 25%. The average 18-hole score on a full-size course is 97 for men and 114 for women. It's an even 100 for all golfers. Only 6% of the men and 1% of the women say they break 80 regularly. When asked what they'd like to shoot, most golfers say they'd be satisfied if they could shoot 85 on a regular basis. The average scores have changed very little over the years.

A few highlights below from the NGF's major report: Strategic Perspective on the Future of Golf  or here: Golf 2020 Segmentation Report

There are some recent factors hindering the growth

• Although the industry has gained 1.5 to 3 million new golfers per year, it has also lost nearly an equal number through a failure to convert interest into commitment. This implies that the industry has not been able to effectively deliver an "experience" that stimulates more golfers to stay with the game, nor has the industry provided an "experience" that motivates the average golfer to play more often.
• Over the last decade, golf has been very successful in attracting new participants, ranging from 1.5 to 3 million per year. The problem though, has been one of retention. As many are leaving as are entering the game.
• Former Golfers. Twelve million former golfers (out of a total of 42 million adult former golfers) indicate that they have a high interest in becoming committed golfers. These people though, have specific barriers inhibiting their return to the game (e.g. intimidating environment, cost of play, difficulty learning the game and no one to play with).

  The NGF also has survey data which shows that nearly half [45 percent] of all golfers have stopped playing for more than one year at least once in their life. One might think this happens primarily among infrequent golfers, but guess again. The percentage among avid golfers is 38 percent vs. 53 percent among occasional golfers.

NGF Survey 10/28/98 If the latest National Golf Foundation/USA Today Golf In America online survey is any indicator, ...850 golfers answering the September survey

    I am asking you, based on your own personal experiences as a thinking golfer, to become my or your own unbiased independent consultant and analyze the sentiments and the observations above to find the common denominator:

• If "game-improvement" clubs actually work, why haven't the scores of average golfers improved?
• How many sets of clubs have you owned? How often do you shop for new clubs? Why do pros and good amateurs constantly tinker with their clubs?
• If golfers were honestly satisfied with the clubs they own, would they spend more time using and enjoying the ones they have and a lot less looking for alternatives?

    As a retired physician with a lot of time to devote to golf, I realized that almost all current and historic golf club designs conflict with normal brain function. This is why these modern miracles of technological designs have not brought about the anticipated improvement in spite of real technological achievements. I came to this realization based on my medical training/knowledge and after years of study and research both on the course and in libraries. And by reasonable extrapolation, I came to the conclusion that:

"My bad shots are generally caused by what I believe are defectively designed golf clubs and so are yours."

Every golfer instinctively (consciously or unconsciously) knows this to be true. I built this website to show all interested golfers how I came to this conclusion and to hopefully enlist your aid and support in bringing my discovery to market so that all golfers can play better golf. My motives are not purely altruistic; I will not try to conceal my desire to profit from this discovery. I hope to receive a small royalty from each and every club that is built using my designs or that are marketed under the theory that is the foundation of this work.

Now, I am asking for your help. Before you buy your next club or next set of golf clubs tell the vendor or the manufacturer that you have reviewed a web site that provides convincing data indicating that, "THERE IS NO DEMONSTRABLE EVIDENCE THAT MODERN GOLF CLUB DESIGN AND/OR TECHNOLOGY HAS LOWERED THE SCORE OF A SINGLE PLAYER." Give them a link to this web site. And then before you buy, ask them to provide you copies or links of any hard data or other evidence that they have that refutes this claim. I am asking that you or they also share this evidence with me and the rest of the golf world. Golf is a target game. If their golf clubs are going to lower scores, then balls struck with their clubs are going to have to finish closer to the hole more often than those struck by competing clubs. In theory, if they can't produce this data, is there any real reason why you should part with your hard earned money? I would invite anyone, including all current manufacturers or vendors, to prove my conclusion is wrong by offering proof that their clubs have unequivocally lowered scores.

Finally, there is one other thing that I am asking you to do for me. I have never built or tested a prototype of my designs. I don't have any hard data that my theory is correct. The only evidence that I have to offer anyone considering a royalty proposal is that my web site provides mathematical evidence approaching proof beyond a reasonable doubt that modern golf club designs or technology have not been the cause of any scoring reductions that have been seen in tournament golf when no one else besides Mr. Uihlein noticed. Proving that others have not built golf clubs that can lower scores is not proof that my designs can. But I am willing to put my money where my mouth is. Here is the offer that you can point out to them:

1. I would rather Rush Limbaugh have Excellence in Golf than anyone else. The United States has been drifting farther and farther from its Constitutional roots. The Founders would not recognize our country as their legacy. The Reagan Renaissance can turn the country around before the unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare threaten our children, our currency, the credit of the United States or indeed the future survival of our freedoms and way of life. Please send Rush and email and ask him to examine Excellence in Golf for himself.

2. If your name is Tiger Woods and you accept some variation of my contract proposal, I am willing to wager an additional $50,000 that clubs using my designs will lower your average score per round by at least 0.25 strokes; that is one full stroke per tournament. I realize $50,000 is nothing to you, but it is a lot for me to lose. If I am right, consider what it would economically mean to you. It could make you a billionaire in roughly five years, and you could promote golf instead of Nike or Titleist.  

3. If you are a major manufacturer, I will offer a similar bet to you that I have offered to Tiger Woods. Negotiate and sign a contract with me, and I will bet your CEO the sum of $100,000 (using his personal money) that my designs will lower his or her handicap by one full stroke or at least ten per cent (10%) by the time he or she turns in 20 scores with the new clubs of my design. If the CEO is a Democrat interested in fairness and equality, I would consider making the wager in the form of a percentage of my annual income against an equal percentage of his annual income much like the equality found in our income tax law. Or if he prefers, we could make the wager parallel property taxes instead. I would consider betting a fixed percentage of my net worth against an equal percentage of his net worth There is one other stipulation that only applies to the manufacturers' CEO's, you must decide whether to accept the wager or what form of the bet after the contract is signed, but before you have reviewed the theory or the designs.  

4. And I am willing to share some of the development costs.

Interested parties can contact me here: EIG@padre-island.us

Thank you for your interest.

    Oh, there is one other item for Callaway Golf to address. Please define the standard by which "demonstrably superior" should be judged. Golf is a target game that is readily quantified. How many strokes has Callaway Golf demonstrably saved its customers? After my theory proves to be correct, how will Callaway Golf justify its refusal to examine the "demonstrably superior" in order to produce the "pleasingly different". As Rush would say, "Classic liberalism; symbolism over substance."

 Site Map