The gathering, two weeks ago at the Four Seasons Aviara Resort in Carlsbad, California, was called the Callaway Golf Partnership Event, and the news conference was scheduled to announce the debut of the new Callaway Hawk Eye VFT (Variable Face Thickness) titanium driver and fairway woods.

The Hawk Eye VFT is essentially a United States Golf Association conforming version of the previously banned Callaway ERC driver. Earlier this year, the thin-faced Callaway ERC was deemed non-conforming by the USGA due to its 'spring-like' effect as the golf ball leaves the face of the club.

The introduction of the Hawk Eye VFT was not all that took place that day. Ely Callaway also announced that Callaway Golf would proceed to sell its new nonconforming driver, the ERC II, in the United States. The ERC II is said to be even longer and more accurate than the original ERC.

As if this announcement wasn't controversial enough, Arnold Palmer then stood up and supported the use of the USGA banned Callaway driver for 'recreational or non-tournament play'.

Adding to the significance of this event is the fact that Palmer has been the spokesman for the USGA's membership program for the past 20 years, and is probably the last person anyone would expect to endorse a golf club which is, by the letter of the USGA's laws, illegal.

While the Royal Canadian Golf Association supported the USGA decision, the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews did not, and thus far have not enacted 'driver limits' in their equipment testing. This means the original ERC, along with the new ERC II, may be used legally worldwide in all golf tournaments outside of the United States, Canada, and Mexico.

This unprecedented move by Callaway Golf to proceed with marketing a 'banned' club in the United States may be considered public acknowledgement of the fact that as the great Bobby Jones once said "There are two distinct kinds of golf - just plain golf and tournament golf ".

For those of us who have been around the game long enough, this does not exactly represent an epiphany. We all recognize the fact that the majority of people who enjoy playing golf never enter a tournament, or for that matter even establish a handicap factor. These 'recreational golfers' include everyone from beginners to those who have played, and enjoyed, the game their entire lives.

Is it not the basic philosophy of designers and manufacturers to strive to improve upon existing equipment? When you think about it, there are just four ways in which golf clubs may be improved upon to enhance our enjoyment of the game. These factors are distance, accuracy, feel, and aesthetics.

Would it make logical sense to ban a new club because it 'looks too good', or 'feels too good'. Why should a club be forbidden because it 'may' help a player keep his ball 'in play' more often, or shortens the length of his second shot, which by the way is still not much of an advantage if the player can't hit his irons accurately on his approach shots. It just means he's pushing a seven iron into that greenside bunker rather than a six.

The equipment manufacturers may do everything in their power and spend millions of dollars to develop drivers which will add distance or wedges which may allow you to stop a ball on the hood of your car, but when it comes right down to it, the golfer himself still has the responsibility of delivering the club head to the ball on the proper path and with enough club head speed to take full advantage of the features which have been built into the club he is swinging. Gaining an extra 20 yards on your tee shots is not much of an advantage if it just means that you're 20 years deeper in the woods.

On the basis that golf is supposed to be 'fun', and the growth of the sport is dependent upon people taking up the game and enjoying themselves enough to want to continue playing years into the future, is it not logical to take full advantage of modern technology which may enhance the enjoyment factor? Of course it is.

Back in the late 70's when the oversized tennis racquet was introduced, the 'powers that be' were all in favor of endorsing the design, knowing full well that it would make the game easier for most people to play, and that being the case would be a welcomed innovation within the sport. They knew the future health of tennis worldwide was dependent upon new people taking up the game and staying with it.

Let us reflect for a moment now, that if we acknowledge the existence of 'two distinct kinds of golf - just plain golf and tournament golf', we could carry that a step further and surmise there are two distinct 'belief systems' when it comes to the Rules of Golf. There are Rules of Tournament Golf and Rules of Recreational Golf.

The Rules of Golf as we know them could also be considered the Rules of Tournament Golf, since under tournament conditions, they prevail. However, the Rules of Recreational Golf exist not so in printed form, but rather in 'attitudinal form'.

These are the more 'relaxed Rules' which permit 'gimmes', 'mulligans', 'preferred lies in the rough and the fairway', 'dropping a ball where it went out of bounds rather than hoofing it back to the tee', etc. These are the Rules by which a great number of 'recreational golfers' play, and they feel quite comfortable with their liberal interpretation of the version of The Rules of Golf as spelled out by the USGA and R&A.

Clearly, if you choose to play in a tournament, club event, or any gathering under which The Rules of Golf apply, you must abide by those Rules, including ensuring that any clubs in your bag are legal and conforming.

If, however, you play golf merely for the 'fun of it', and the intrinsic pleasure you receive from striking the ball 'pure' and keeping it 'in play' are more important to you than the 'legitimacy' of your final score, then you may be the type of 'recreational' (or as Jones would say 'plain golfer') who Ely Callaway and Arnold Palmer both had in mind when they stood up and basically challenged the USGA to finally acknowledge the existence of your kind.