Big Bad Sumo2

The golf consumer is "thumbing the nose" at Nike.

It has been several weeks since the clubmaker announced it was recalling its new Sumo2 Square Head drivers because of non-conformance issues.

Nike Canada declared that any amateur who had bought the new square head could return it for a Sumo driver and a fairway wood. Or the consumer could simply request a refund.

Nike Canada offered a third option: let Nike test the club to determine its legal status.

In the U.S., the recall is different: return your non-conforming Sumo2 and Nike will ship you one that is USGA legal.

In Canada, at least, none of the above seems to be happening.

Those who bought possibly non-conforming Nike Sumo2s have decided to hang on to them.

Nike has been quick to point out that the potential gain from any illegal Sumo2s is a yard or two. And that's when the driver strikes the golf ball dead center in the club face.

According to the wisdom of crowds, then, a yard or two is either too precious to give up (not likely) or it's just not worth going through the hassle of exchange (more likely).

Frankly, the consumer is right.

Under the USGA's rules governing spring-like effect in drivers, the non-conforming club is illegal in tournament play.

But the recreational golfer is saying,"who cares?" How often does the weekend duffer hit the ball dead center on the clubface? Without a head wind to nullify the minimal distance gain? Or from an elevated tee?

I suspect Nike's corporate headquarters in Oregon is finding the same thing that Nike Canada is discovering: those who own the Sumo2 aren't bothering to exchange it.

In my recent interview with Frank Thomas, former technical director of the USGA, he made the point that there has to be one set of rules in the game, not, he said, one set for professionals and one set for amateurs.

It's a valid point.

Of course, he wasn't referring specifically to the Sumo2 issue but I think that Thomas might forgive those recreational golfers who can sleep at night even though they play with a driver that the USGA declares illegal through a complex formula based on the laws of physics.

But then Thomas didn't want any spring-like effect from drivers, to begin with.

Had the USGA heeded his views, fought any lawsuits over the issue, and stood firm, Nike wouldn't be recalling drivers and the consumer wouldn't be ignoring the recall.

In the end, the world still spins and the sun still rises and sets.

One or two yards doesn't make my game better.

But an illegal wedge that can produce exceptional backspin from my amateur swing or a wildly non-conforming putter like Rodney Dangerfield used in "Caddyshack", would make a big difference!

And I might have trouble sleeping at night, then.