Callaway Golf Company: Analysis

The driver of the Callaway Golf Company is a world-class institution designed to provide a clear advantage, and to please different golf products, including breakthrough technology the backup these products significantly superior customer service, and generate a return to shareholders the cost in excess of capital.
“CGC was led by Ely Callaway, a powerful motivator who defined the company’s culture.” It’s a world famous golf brand of club and product. CGC’s sales had increased from 1988 to 1998. However, CGC’s sales have decreased after 1999. What are the problems to stop that eagle? “In fall 1999, Callaway faced these questions; the answers would guide him in refocusing CGC’s retail channels, new-product development, and marketing strategies.” In my case study, I will focus on new-product development and described my plan. Logistic include products transport, warehouse, and information processing center. Callaway Golf Club is in expensive price, but popular amateurs and professionals alike. Through its website and golf sporting goods stores, sporting goods retailers, large shopping malls selling its products in over 100 countries and regions,.(Hoovers, Dec)
External Environment
 
CGC is in the Cash cow. It means high relative market share and low market growth rate. That’s because CGC is well known in the world and their products in a lots of retailer stores and the clubs are famous. When Callaway buy the company, his first initiative is to develop original products. Product of golf innovation and superior performance is very important, because the equipment is considered to have a significant impact the performance of the players. In addition, innovation is very important too, because the CGC technology leader in sales of its premium products continue to exceed our customers’ expectations. However, his competitors more focus on specific target market. The technical quality of the product, to enhance the CGC of high quality brands and keep customers to replace the brand. The impact of the external environment, customers are more likely to have special clubs and low cast. To pay the annual high. The CGC is located in Carlsbad, CA(CGC official website) which full of sunshine. It is usually a good place to travel and enjoy golf. People in there might feel more relax than other states. Also, in CA, the employees are enough to do the work.

Get Help With Your Essay
If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Essay Writing Service

Analysis
For the external analysis, the company has a lot of opportunities. Many sports good manufacturers are expanding in the golf market. The aging of the world’s population, many old people play golf, they have flexible income to buy golf equipment. Also, in New England state, Mid- Atlantic state and parts of south west, there are many golf players and the number is increasing. (New York Times. Feb) In Figure 3,
 
CGC strengths are new-products development and well known in the world. The weaknesses are high prices and company relied more heavily on off-course shops. The opportunities are new-products on existing markets and marketing strategies. The threat is new-products sales decrease, low prices, cannot have good value. I will talk about products transport and warehouse in my first step, information processing center will be a follow page.
The catastrophic storm affects not only the golf round in the storm, but a significant period of time. The external analysis will change, because face different economic and compare the situation in the global market.
There are several reasons that will treats the external analysis. The high rate of unemployment rate and the increase in the level of consumer debt. Rejected consumer confidence and spending is increasing year by year. The most important reason is that the increase in the euro against the U.S. dollar, sales in euros had a negative impact. For internal analysis, small golf club manufacturers, new technologies and new production methods to become the world’s largest manufacturer of premium golf clubs and a dominant force in the industry. (ELY: NEW YORK)
The CGC sell more units, the highest price of more equipment than any other company in the business of golf. This is a successful marketing decisions and strategies. , And provide high quality at a high price sales. People will be willing to buy products and interest rates high.
Callaway consumers can trade allowances. From their club to the new Callaway clubs. This option is for consumers to upgrade their equipment.
However, the internal analysis is also have weaknesses. Callaway marketing is focused on promotion, by professional players. The company tracks imitate, resulting in higher administrative costs and loss of income, this is very difficult.
Global Manufactory and Warehouse
CGC need to set up manufactory in different countries for new-products’ transporting and saving. In figure 1,
 
I can clearly find that CGC is in the Product development’ square, the top right side. It means new-products for the existing markets. “To achieve that, CGC had to consistently be on the leading edge of technology and to continually exceed customers’ expectations” (CGC’s case page 505). CGC need to make new-products to continually exceed customers’ expectations. But that “CGC’s biggest challenge, therefore, was to have products differentiated not only from competitors’ products but also from its own. If a product stayed in the pipeline too long, even if it was the best product, its sales would begin declining. This decline occurred because the people who really wanted the product would buy it within the first two years of its introduction” (CGC. 4). The key word is “pipeline”. What is that? It’s “a conduit of pipe, especially one used for the conveyance of water, gas, or petroleum products”( http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pipeline). Yes, products transport. CGC’s wasted time in new-products transportation. For instant, main manufactory transports new-products to global market need a month. If CGC has global manufactory, they just need a week or least in the transportation. That is the reason why manufactory set in foreign countries is very important stratagem. For instant, Apple Co. set his manufactory in China, cheap labor and costing, and than area manager saved those products in their warehouse in location and reported main logistic manager how many products they reserved. Marketing research, area manager build profitable relationships and create customer delight and reported main company about their area’s demand. And they made every month’s demand figure for data copy. Manufactories know how much product they need to make and warehouse will has enough room for new-product and old one. Aside from that, global warehouse good at fix that demand exceeds supply and supply exceeds demand problems. In CGC’s case, manufactory made new-product and transport to off-cause retailers have at least two problems. One is transport slowly, wasting time and declining value of “new”. Another problem is retailer hasn’t enough room for new-products. The second question CGC tried to use other way to fix. “Closeouts generally occurred when existing equipment was discontinued to make room for new products or when CGC had too much inventory itself and wanted to get rid of it. At the time of a new-product introduction, for example, if a retailer had eight of the previous clubs left in inventory, CGC would supply the store with one more new club for free, which brought down the average cost of the remaining inventory. Once a new product was introduced, the retailer had the discretion to mark down the remaining inventory to a price at which it would sell” (CGC’s case page 514). It’s helpful to make room for new-products and low price to sell closeout. “In 1999, CGC held its own closeout and sold $40 million of excess inventory of Great Big Bertha, Biggest Big Bertha, and Great Big Bertha irons to the market at a lower price” (CGC’s case page 514). If they have global warehouse, that would be saving resource and decreasing supply exceed demand risk rate.
Information Processing Center
Information processing center is the place that customers’ require report department. Their have information collect and transmit system to support manufactory, warehouse, and logistic manager or decision center. In case, CGC’s customers are from True friends shift to Butterflies.
Customers are no longer loyalty and they just need the products to play golf that’s it. New-products are the way to continually exceed customers’ expectations, that’s a reason why CGC need to know what customers needs and wants. “Golf was a difficult game whose participants’ emotions ranged from frustration to addiction, with passion and fun mixed in. Even when played in teams, golfers were very competitive with themselves. Golfers often blamed their equipment for their poor play and thus often wanted to update their clubs” (page 506). Those are all different level’s golfers’ wants and needs, high-level golfers doesn’t matter what type of club they used. Average golfers want to play golf and win the game in golf clubs, so they will keep the clubs. “Although one’s mental state and skill level had much to do with on-course achievement, in golf, unlike almost any other sport, the equipment also had a significant effect on a user’s performance. Even though highly skilled golfers would play well no matter what type of club they used, average golfers were able to see noticeable improvements in their game when they used premium equipment. Beginning golfers also benefited because the more forgiving clubs allowed them to make ball contact sooner, frustrating them less so they would not quit the sport prematurely”(case page 506). Beginning golfers would more advice of salespeople. “For a beginning golfer, buying new clubs was a daunting task. Retail shops offered a wealth of options that forced beginners to rely on the advice of salespeople”(page 507). CGC need to have those require from information processing center and make marketing strategies, refocusing on retailer. For example, focus on salespeople training for new-products promotion. For a beginner, salespeople can promote new-products or some old-model with 30%-50% discount. Old-model with discount would easier for people needs. It would not cast a lot of money and good for closeout from warehouse. And CGC gives those salespeople who are selling master 10% of $500 units sold encourage and 20% maximum. Those encourages also be used to information processing center to collect information from customers’ demand. And transmit this information to decision center.
Summarize
CGC has a premium pricing strategy. It provides a high-quality product premium average players who want the performance benefits of the product.
Callaway’s strategy is successful, mainly because of its innovative edge. In addition, the average golfer that their products provide performance advantages.
The country has contributed to the success of the industry. During this time the public interest in golf increased a lot. In addition, the market is not over saturated, the Internet is not in selling products an important factor.
Establish a global manufacturer and warehouse sales will add new products and maintain profitability. And information processing center is useful to study the market and customer feedback and requirements. This will help from the external environment and threat reduction rate.
Cities
“Callaway Golf Company”. New York Times, 8 Feb 2013. Web
http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/news/business/companies/callaway-golf-company/index.html
“Callaway Golf Company Company Information”. Hoovers, 31 Dec 2012. Web
http://www.hoovers.com/company-information/cs/company-profile.Callaway_Golf_Company.fd42e2e0f3140749.html
“Callaway Golf Company (ELY: NEW YORK)”. Bloomberg BusinessWeek, 2 Feb 2013. Web
http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/financials/financials.asp?ticker=ELY
 

Bio Mechanical Analysis Of The Golf Swing Physical Education Essay

Since hitting of the ball may be repeated an average of 50 times during an 18-hole course, or 300 times or more during a practice session by a professional, it is easy to understand that, for both professional and recreational players, injuries can occur either through overuse or bad technique through actions causing severe trauma (Kohn 1996).
McCaroll (1990) found that professionals injured their self less frequently than that of amateurs, and that the causes of injury were due to poor swing mechanics.
Injuries to these musculoskeletal structures are caused either by overload of tension, twisting of the tissues or the strain of the physical impact of hitting the ball (Stover 1976).
The aim of this essay is to review and analyse the golf swing biomechanically to identify the correct technique to help prevent common golfing injuries. The golf swing will be broken down in to 6 phases; ball address, end of backswing, forward swing/acceleration, ball impact, early follow through, and late follow through. For each of these 6 phases the human body undergoes biomechanical stresses likely to provoke injuries, these injuries and their prevention will be discussed during each phase.
Phase 1 and 2 – Ball Address and End of Back Swing
There are several factors to consider during the ball address to ensure an effective technique for force production and injury prevention.
Bad posture can cause skeletal and joint misalignment, which will affect the pattern of stress imposed on tissue and the area of force distribution (McGinnis 1999). Therefore if the player’s posture is less then optimal they begin and end movement in an aberrant position and as a result the chances of accelerating joint wear are increased.
The attainment of the optimal pre-stroke posture is achieved through a good starting position – i.e. even weight distribution on both feet with a shoulder width stance. This will ensure a significant base of support that will promote stability and equilibrium to the golfer as the centre of gravity moves throughout the shot. Therefore allowing maximal potential kinetic energy to be generated through the club. If the stance is too wide truck rotation will be reduced placing greater strain on the spine, causing injury. Alternatively, if the feet are too narrow, reducing the base of support, it could lead the golfer to lose control of the swing due to a decrease in stability. To help prevent injuries to lower back during the entire swing it is essential to have good core stability. (Wilson 2005 p. 316) describes the core “as the ability of the lumbo-pelvic hip complex to prevent buckling of the vertebral column and return it to equilibrium following perturbation”. As a result, core stability is essential to help stabilise the body which in effect will help to support the antagonist of the abdominal, therefore preventing injury to the lower back. As joint mechanics are less than ideal with poor posture, joints will not effectively move around a central axis, therefore preventing angular motion. With poor posture, the stabilising muscles of the body (those that help maintain joint axis rotation), become long and weak. In opposition, the movement muscles of the body become overused, short and tight. A continuation of this cycle leads to further imbalance, increasing the chances of injury (Chek 1998). Once good posture is achieved there should be slight anterior flexion of the trunk at the hips and the shoulders, knees and feet must be aligned. The back must be kept straight while keeping the vertebral column perpendicular to the ground in the frontal plane (although the upper body of the player remains leaning forward towards the ball to allow a lower centre of gravity to optimise equilibrium throughout the swing).

Get Help With Your Essay
If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Essay Writing Service

If your centre of gravity is not distributed evenly when you take your setup due to a postural fault or incorrect stance the centre of gravity may be too far back, which in effect will cause the legs to move before the backswing is complete. Consequently power is supplied by the arms and shoulders only, which again creates excessive force through the shoulder and elbow.
In the second phase, the backswing, a simultaneous rotation to the right side around the spinal vertical axis of the knees, hips and upper limbs is executed. This raises the club to its highest point in order to obtain the widest possible arc of motion (Adlington 1996)
Injuries related with the address and backswing of the golf swing are:
Frontal flexion at the dorsolumbar spine rather than at the hips increases the possibility of vertebral hypermobility and unbalanced muscular stress during the backswing (Hosea 1996)
Overextended, straight arms (especially the left) or hyperextend elbows and abnormally high muscular tension in the forearms (too tight a grip) reduces the effectiveness in creating speed in the downswing and can induce elbow and wrist injuries at ball impact (Gosheger 2003)
A grip without interlocking hands or too loose a grip increases the danger of dropping the club causing a loss of accuracy on ball impact and injury of the elbow, wrist or hand through ground impact.
An excessively long backswing may cause trunk over-rotation injury or throw the golfer off balance leading to ground collision injuries.
Excess backswing also increases tension in the left thumb and right wrist. Excess arm/shoulder elevation on the backswing, with the left arm abducting the left shoulder, impinges on the subacromial tissues (tendons, bursa) and requires good stabilisation from the rotator cuff muscles. If the bursa continues to be impinged this could lead to the bursa becoming inflamed causing bursitis.( Jobe 1996)
Leftward spinal lean, instead of being parallel to the ground, during the rightward weight shift increases the possibility of a conflicting spinal curve posture at the end of the follow through. The rightward weight shift abnormally collected on the outside of the right foot can cause a loss of equilibrium and right ankle sprain.( McCarroll 1990)
Phase 3 and 4 – Forward Swing/Acceleration and Ball Impact
The third phase of the golf swing is characterised by the activation of an anatomical multi lever system which gives the club a downswing in a rotational, angular trajectory and a maximum speed. A lever system is rigid or semi-rigid object that is capable of rotating around a fulcrum (McLeste 2008). In a golf swing a third class lever is present and consists of the golf club and the golfers arm. Levers increase speed and power, therefore maintaining a longer lever will increase power production. If the lever is shortened due to flexing the elbow on impact it will take a greater force to obtain the same power. Therefore excessive force will be transferred into the elbow. If the fulcrum is so far off-set away from centre, a lot of muscular effort must go into the grip of the club at one end in order to move the club head at the other.
These levers are activated in sequence from the ground level upwards; from the feet to the wrists. Prior to the completion of the backswing, good golfers are gathering kinetic energy from the ground upwards in preparation for the downswing. As the feet push into the ground forces are generated and then transferred back into the body, in turn accelerating firstly through the hips, shoulders, arms and then club head. This is an effective use of the kinetic chain by generating forces from the bottom up which will allow for an efficient smooth motion. If the kinetic chain breaks down due to inconsistency in the swing technique this could lead to injuries as the force is not being controlled and distributed evenly through the body.
The risks for injuries in the downswing and ball impact occur in the zones of greatest muscular activity. There is also risk for injury to the elbows, wrists and hands if any of these 3 structures is held too stiff. (Kohn 1996)
Injuries related with the down swing and ball impact of the golf swing are:
Thoracic and abdominal muscular strains may arise after forceful upper body rotation on the downswing. (Stover 1976)
The leftward weight shift can create considerable compressive forces on the left leg (hip, knee, ankle and foot) which are hazardous to individuals with osteoarthritis. (Hahn 1991)
Lateral or medial epicondylitis (golfer’s elbow) can be sustained at impact if the grip is too tight or the elbows are held too tightly or are hyper extended. Grips size is therefore important as too small a grip will make the golfer grip tightly. Clubs of proper weight, length, and grip are therefore important in significantly reducing the vigorous forces generated within the elbow (Kocker 2000)
Excessive wrist flexion/extension in the downswing, or hitting the ground after losing equilibrium, can cause serious hand and wrist injuries. (Murray & Cooney 1996).
Phase 5 and 6 – Follow Through and Late Follow Through
The follow through is essentially the deceleration of the body after contact with the ball has been made. Deceleration by the body occurs as a result of the absorption of energy back up through the kinetic chain of the body. The danger for injuries to the lumbar dorsal zone arises if the deceleration stops too abruptly or if the final range of motion of spinal rotation is too prominent (Parnianpour 1988). Posterior shoulder injuries are most likely during the follow through due to the high inertia and large acceleration (Atwater 1979). At the very top of the follow through, the spine is rotated to the left, and the hips are fully facing the target which enlists the help of the abdominal muscles to support the spine, while the wrist joints abduct working the wrist extensors to drop the club behind the back. At impact, the body shifts back to the relatively symmetrical position for a very short time, then the centre of gravity shifts towards the target as the mass of the arms and club move in that direction. To golfer must dissertate and control this energy if he intends to remain on his feet. Research by Fleisig (1995) indicated that at impact the left foot (right-handed golfer) is supporting 80% to 95% of the golfer’s weight, therefore concluding it is essential for golfers to wear spikes to help control this energy. Gatt (1998) supports this theory stating they provide additional traction, allowing the forces generated by the lower body to be transferred into the club.
Injuries associated with the early and late follow through are:
Shoulder ligaments and rotator cuff muscles can experience excessive mechanical stress (tension or compression) in a forceful follow through (Hovis 2002)
Injury to the hips or dorsolumbar spine may arise due to the deceleration of the follow through is too rapid (Parnianpour 1988)
An excessively forceful drive, inducing a reversed C lordotic spinal curvature, may induce unusual high stresses on the dorso-lumbar vertebral bodies, in particular on the posterior joints (Batt 1993)
An off-balance weight transfer or slide can cause an ankle or foot sprain as well as knee injury
Injury Prevention
Flexible muscles and tendons are extremely important in the prevention of most strain or sprain injuries. It is important to have a significant amount of muscular strength and muscle endurance as this will affect the magnitude of the loading and shock absorption on the body. Joint flexibility will affect the load pattern of segments (McGinnis1999).When muscles and tendons are flexible and supple, they are able to move and perform without being over stretched. If, however, muscles and tendons are tight and stiff, it is quite easy for those muscles and tendons to be pushed beyond their natural range of movement and therefore this will increase the risk of injury. When this happens, strains, sprains, and pulled muscles occur.
In addition for the need for flexibility the following strategies aid to prevent golfing injuries:
Dorsolumbar spine
Injuries
sprain, muscular strain, herniated disc and arthrosis (Hosea1996).
Preventive techniques
Straight back posture, maintaining joint alignment and weight transfer during the golf swing
Speed control during trunk rotation (i.e. use of the kinetic chain)
Reduction of the shoulder range of motion and trunk
Effective use of angular motion
Dorsolumbar conditioning through flexibility and muscular strengthening exercises
Elbow, wrist and hand
Injuries
Epicondylitis (Golfers Elbow), chronic sprain, tendinitis, carpal tunnel syndrome and fracture (Murry & Cooney 1996)
Preventive techniques
Reduction of wrist flexor/extensor (grip) tension and loosening of elbows
Reduction of excessive wrist motion
Maintaining good balance during weight transfer
Wrist and finger flexor/extensor conditioning for flexibility and strength
Use of a counter-shock brace, a more flexible, lighter golf club (graphite) or club counter-shock device (Metz 1999)
Shoulder
Injuries
Tendinitis, bursitis, glenohumeral instability, sprain (Jobe 1996)
Preventive techniques
Reduction of the angular shoulder displacement at backswing
Control of excessive arm motion at follow through
Conditioning exercises for flexibility (posterior capsule) and rotator cuff strengthening to help stabilise the shoulder joint (Hovis 2002)
Conclusion
In conclusion restrictions in the body in terms of flexibility, muscular strength, endurance, or power can create boundaries in the swing from a biomechanical viewpoint. In addition, biomechanical defects in the swing itself limit the potential and kinetic energy outputs of the body. Injuries to the upper limb account for the majority of golf-related injuries. Most injuries occur as the club impacts the ball and are muscle-related due to the high forces and strain applied during the downswing. An understanding of how the body moves biomechanically to harness these forces and the muscle activity achieved during the golf swing will help athletes and coaches to understand why these injuries occur and the ways to prevent them in the future.
 

Product and Process Analysis on Golf Club

The universe of golf club design has dramatically expanded and passed on over the past 20 years. High expectations for design skills coupled with the increasing influence of advanced technology within club design and the play make this an industry of continual flux and revolution. This thesis will layout a comprehensive plan of an approach to teaching a class in golf course design to landscape architecture students. The subject area of golf course design is enormous, with its own story and many technical details. I think that it is possible for engineering students to acquire a universal apprehension of the tip that would be beneficial to them whether they prefer to pursue golf course plan or some other related field like community design or resort planning.

TABLE OF CONTENT

Table of Contents

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION

DESIGN SPECIFICATION

Collection of materials/tools

The tools required to design golf club and the materials used

The materials used

Measuring and cutting of the shaft/readings

Assembling the club/swingweight

The Manufacturing Process

Forming the head:

Forming the shaft:

Quality Control

The Future

INITIATING THE PROJECT

PLANNING THE PROJECT

EXECUTING THE PROJECT

CLOSING THE PROJECT

Customer’s Focus:

Process Approach

ISO 9001 STANDARD

Improving processes

Reduce costs

BENEFITS

Critically reflect on personal performance identifying developmental needs

The leaning outcome

The student’s difficulty

Improvement

Conclusion

Reference

The actualization of every project comes about by implementing creative solutions to accomplish the target. The procedure of designing a golf course requires careful thought and preparation. By attending golf practical design, construction skills, we can anticipate and account for problems or factors which might become challenges facing the project result. As engineer, we are essentially problem solvers, and by developing solutions before construction, the project proceeds as efficiently and cost-effectively as possible.

Describe tools to improve industrial performance within engineering organisations.

A clear analysis of the considerations made during the design process

Engineering designs can be labelled as innovation-devices or arrangements that are created by human effort and did not exist before or are improvements over existing devices or arrangements. Describing engineers primarily as problem solvers. What differentiates design from other types of problem solving is the nature of both the problem and the answers. Design problems are open ended in nature, which implies they receive more than one right answer. The outcome or solution to a design problem is a system that holds specified properties. The five basic-step process usually used in a problem-solving also works for design problems as well.

The four steps procedures in designing a 6-iron golf club are:

     State laws differ about the scope of publicity

     Collection of materials/tools

     Measuring and cutting of the shaft/readings

     Assembling the club/swingweight

 

 

 

 

 

State laws differ about the scope of publicity

Golf clubs are the instruments we use to hit the golf ball. A golf club has three parts — the Head, the Shaft and the Grip. The patterns of golf constrain golf club designs, only the goal of clubmakers is to create golf clubs, within those constraints that maximize the physics behind a golfer’s swing while allowing for some range of swing error to provide an accurate, long, and forgiving shot. The better your swing, the less forgiving club you require whereas the more your swing needs work, the better off you are with a more forgiving club design.

The tools required to design golf club and the materials used

Club Length Measure Tool or Ruler

Frequency Analyzer

Swing Weight Scale

The materials used

40 inches length of steel shaft

6-iron head club and the grip

This method covers the procedure for measuring the shaft of a 6-iron golf club.

Original length of the steel shaft golf-club given

40 inches

Expected length of steel shaft

36.5 inches

Expected length of the steel shaft without club

36.5 inches

Expected cycle per minute for 6-iron (Regular)

295 – 300

Length of the golf-club

1 inch

Driver grip, from the end

1.5 inch

Tip end shaft

1 inch

The original length of the shaft is 40 inches and the length of head club is 1 inch.

40inches – 1 inch =39 inches

Put the steel shaft in the frequency analyser and take down the readings, adjust the shaft backward you take each reading

Golf club

Cycle per minute

39.5”

287.64

37.0”

301.43

36.4

296.91

Our final reading of the steel shaft with the club attached at the tip end is 36.4” with a frequency of 296.91 cycle per minute with 2.6” out of the frequency analyser

To cut-off the remaining inches, use a tube cutter to trim the shaft or a hacksaw (39.0” – 2.6” = 36.4”).

There are various ways to fasten the head to the shaft. Insert the shaft into the socket on the club head and insert the grip and then place the golf club on the ruler to take the final measurement of the golf club which is 37.5 inches (the shaft length + head club + the grip = 37.5”).

Place the golf club on the swingweight tool to get the readings which is;

Swingweight: D1.

 

An analysis of the importance of the design stage within the manufacturing process

Golf clubs are made up from a broad assortment of fabrics, including metals, plastics, ceramics, composites, wood, and others. Every golf club maker uses a little different manufacturing process. Big companies use highly automated machinery, while smaller companies use hand tools. Some components of the manufacturing process may be singular to one society and regarded as trade secrets.

Here is a method of operations applied to produce a machine-made, perimeter-weighted golf iron.

Forming the head: The head is created by a process called investment casting. A master die of the club head is constructed from metal. The die consists of two halves with a hollow cavity that is the exact condition and size of the craved club head.

Forming the shaft: If the shaft is produced of steel or stainless steel, it is made by a process called tube drawing. A tube of the craved length is pulled part way through an opening in an die little smaller than the tube diameter, which causes the drawn portion of the subway system to knock down in diameter.

Find Out How UKEssays.com Can Help You!
Our academic experts are ready and waiting to assist with any writing project you may have. From simple essay plans, through to full dissertations, you can guarantee we have a service perfectly matched to your needs.
View our services

Golf clubs are made with much attention to specifications as components for aircraft. In fact, most club manufacturers feature their specifications as a means of differentiating their clubs from the contest. Swing weight, lie angle, shaft torque, and a horde of other specifications are not just important to the club designers, but are too significant to the company’s clients.

The status of golf is expected to proceed to rise. As the number of recreational players increases, there will be an emphasis on designing clubs that make the game more interesting for the intermediate golf player.

 

B. In relation to the product you have manufactured:

Four each of the 4 stages of the project management process, describe the activities you undertook within each stage.

This week, we student typically are taking on a task to design golf club, assigned the project and the necessary resources to a carefully chosen individual and assumed were using some form of task management. The project management process typically includes four key phases: initiating the project, planning the project, executing the project, and closing the project. An abstract of each form is supplied under.

The task management techniques related to the project initiation phase include:

Setting up the project initiation team. This calls for organizing team members to aid in posting away the project initiation activities.

Building a relationship with the client. The reason for your customer’s organization will foster a more substantial relationship between the two parties.

The task management techniques related to the project planning phase include:

Identifying the project scope, alternatives, and feasibility: The understanding of the content and complexity of the task. Relevant questions that should be answered include:

What problem/opportunity does the project address?

What results are to be achieved?

What needs to be done?

How will progress and success be measured?

How will we know when we are done?

Split the project into tasks: This step is practiced ensuring an easy progression between tasks.

Estimating resources and creating a resource program: This serves to collect and arrange resources in the most efficient manner and hence along.

The task management techniques related to the project execution phase include:

Carrying out the baseline project plan. The task of the project manager is to initiate the performance of task activities, acquire and assign resources, orient and develop new team members, keep the project on agenda, and assure the quality of project deliverables.

Monitoring project progress against the baseline project plan. Using Gantt and PERT charts, which will be discussed in detail further on in this paper, can aid the task manager in managing this.

Communicate project status. This implies that the total project plan should be shared with the entire project team and any revisions to the program should be conveyed to all interested parties so that everyone understands how the program is evolving.

The task management techniques related to the project closedown phase include:

Closing the project. In this phase, it is important to notify all concerned parties of the culmination of the task. Likewise, all project documentation and books should be finalized so that the final recap of the task can be directed.

Conducting post project reviews. This is done to find out the strong points and weaknesses of project deliverables, the procedures used to make them, and the project management process.

Closing the customer contract. The concluding action is to ensure that all contractual terms of the project have been seen.

C. In relation to the product you have manufactured undertake the following:

Identify two principles of the international standard for quality management ISO9001 and analyse how these could be used as a tool to improve performance.

The principal focus of quality management is to conform to customer requirements and to strive to surpass customer expectations. To explain further, sustained success is reached when an organization attracts and keeps back the trust of customers and other interested parties. Some key benefit to keep customer expectation are;

Increased customer value

Increased customer satisfaction

Improved customer satisfaction and loyalty

Enhanced repeat business

Actions to take to achieve customers expectation are as such;

Recognize direct and indirect customers as those who picks up the value of the system.

Understand customers’ current and future demands and expectations.

Plan, plan, produce, create, present and support goods and services to satisfy client demands and anticipations.

Steady and expected consequences are accomplished more effectively and efficiently when activities are interpreted and managed as interrelated processes that serve as a logical scheme. The quality management system and understanding how results are created by this arrangement enables an organization to promote the system and its operation. Some of the key benefit includes;

Heightened power to concentrate effort on key procedures and a chance for betterment

Steady results through a system of aligned processes and so on.

Identify a standard which could relate to your product and analyse how this is of benefit to industry.

Designing a golf club, does not mean if your design meets the ISO 9001 requirements. As a designer, a good design process is vital unless you just manufacture products based on customer drawings. In ISO9001, it does not tell how to implement designs but only what you needed is required to be implemented. The standard parts that is required in ISO9001 which formalised the procedure, processes and responsibilities are;

Improving processes

Plan: Address the problem, collect measurement/data and plan a change

Carry-out: Develop and follow out the solution

Check: Review test, confirm results, measure how effective was the variety

Act: Take action based on the outcome of the previous measure. Implement improved solution

Reduce costs: this includeseliminating waste and better efficiency and so on

Its benefit is based on the potential features and considering how I communicate the benefit to industry.

The product features

Potential benefit to industry

How it is developed or manufactured

It supports local industry and helps the environment

How it compares to competitors’ products

You are receiving quality and value for money

Allows flexibility and comfort

Offers greater detail and leaves for more exercises

Its cost

You can well afford it

The leaning outcome

In the laboratory, all the pupils in their different groups discoursing on how to carry-out their designs on golf club, I saw that on that point would be a great deal to memorise during this exercise and decisions made is based along the test, calculations, the measurement we took, during the design of the golf clubhouse.

By serving a group workshop, we acquainted ourselves with the undertaking given to us.

The student’s difficulty

The most difficulty we have was when finished the installation/assembling the golf club, we realised that the golf club is short by 1.1” compare to our expected result which is 37.5” and the fault was from weighting and taken down the frequency readings and a wrong measurement was used to cut the shaft of the of the golf club and the cutting the shaft is done at one end of the shaft only, of course, we have to start all over again.

Improvement

In as much as there are no limitations on weight or materials, if I am improving on my intent, then the weight of the shaft must be somewhat larger than the original weight (126 grams), with the combined improved club and the swing testers of 6-iron club hit the ball will be valued.

Conclusion

The experimental values and forecast values of improved club mentioned in this paper can be an important reference for golf companies to customize the clubs in the hereafter, the hitting distance can be increased by nearly 5% to increase the maximum hitting efficiency of the club.

 

 

 

Reference

 
 

Influences of American Antitrust Principles on Golf

Are the Rules of Golf in violation of Antitrust Law?
Abstract:
Today, the two regulatory bodies for golf, the United States Golf Association (USGA) and the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews (R&A) establish the technical specifications for golf equipment. Indeed all major sports would have some regulatory body undertaking the same activity. The purpose of this paper is to analyse the extent to which American antitrust principles will influence the application of Australian antitrust (or competition law) canons to the Rules of Golf. In Australia, the rules promulgated by the regulatory bodies are adopted through its national association, Golf Australia, upon a delegation from the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews. The issues specifically raised are whether regulation of golf equipment improperly excludes innovative products from reaching the market place (ss45/4D of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Aus) – with this provision somewhat equivalent to §1 of the Sherman Act 1890 (US)), and second, whether the golf regulators are unfairly exercising market power (s46 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Aus) – this section broadly parallels §2 of the Sherman Act 1890 (US)). With precedential case law emanating from the United States, it is possible, if not probable, that a manufacturer (be they Australian or international) may look to the Australian courts as a medium by which their innovative and ground-breaking product can reach the hands of avid golfers. This article examines the United States litigation and applies it to the above-mentioned competition law principles. It has particular relevance to a United States audience given that American manufacturers dominate the retail market for golf clubs in Australia. A framework will be presented against which sporting equipment regulators can test the validity of their rules regarding equipment restrictions. Whilst golf will be the background for this critique, the analysis is equally relevant for any sport (if not all), which contain such limitations.

Get Help With Your Essay
If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Essay Writing Service

Introduction
There is no doubting the importance of sport to the human psyche. From an Australian perspective it is an inherent part of the Australian persona, developed as part of our culture. Whether it is our wealth, weather, availability of land or some other reason, many Australians participate in any number of outdoor and indoor recreational pursuits that come within the broad rubric of sports. As one of the most prominent activities, golf occupies a specific niche in the Australian community. With approximately 1.139ml (or 8% of the population) playing, the related employment of 20,000 people, club revenues of $1.1bn, 30ml rounds played annually, at least 20 male players on the United States Professional Tour and the number nine ranked female player in the world (Karrie Webb), Australia is rightfully positioned as the worlds number two golfing nation, behind only the United States of America.
However, for every golfer frustrated with a short game that begins off the tee, a putter that uncomfortably yips at impact, or a ball that doesn’t respect the modern mantra of mental visualisation, a lingering question remains, to what extent do the technology restrictions imposed by the regulators of golf actually protect the fundamental values that lie behind the game? Perhaps more specifically, do the contemporary developments such as the conformance test for the ‘spring-like’ effect off clubheads, or the limitations on the distance that a ball can travel serve to protect the skill level of the game, or simply restrict competition amongst innovative manufacturers whilst at the same time exasperating the legion of players in the game. Has tradition been preserved at the expense of progress? Development and growth in sporting equipment is about innovation, (if not in society), and on a simplistic level restrictions prevent competition amongst companies who must create to sell their product to the consumer. Subject to normal use, golf clubs will last for many years if not decades. To purchase new equipment, the golfer needs to be convinced that the latest contrivance (such as the redirection of the weight in the head of the club; the redesigning of the geometry of the dimples on the golf ball, or the adjustability of the shaft), will see that golfer move imperceptibly closer to the utopian ideal of swing perfection. But the question remains – how can a conventional competition law analysis allow sporting administrators the opportunity to engage the game and its participants with its fundamental values, or does sport (as a fundamental part of Australian society) simply need to mend its way to fit within the competition law ideals promulgated and promoted by governments of all persuasions.
United States Litigation
The genesis for present day litigation has been the United States of America. In a golfing context, two cases dramatically highlight the antitrust implications of the Rules of Golf:
Weight-Rite Golf Corp v United States Golf Association and Gilder v PGA Tour Inc.
Weight-Rite Golf Corp v United States Golf Association concerned an action brought by a manufacturer and distributor of (among other things) a particular golf shoe.The plaintiff had designed a golf shoe to promote stability and appropriate weight transference in the swing. The USGA issued a determination banning the shoe alleging that it did not conform to the USGA’s Rules of Golf. However, Weight Rite argued that the USGA determination amounted to a group boycott or concerted refusal to deal. In the United States, this is per se unlawful under the Sherman Act (in Australia this would be per se illegal under s45 of the Trade Practices Act 1973), no lessening of competition need be established. As noted by the Court these types of practices are:
“agreements or practices which because of their pernicious effect on competition and lack of any redeeming virtue are conclusively presumed to be unreasonable and therefore illegal without elaborate inquiry as to the precise harm they have caused or the business excuse for their use”.
However, in addition, Weight Rite submitted that even if the per se rule was not applicable, the USGA’s action violated the rule of reason, that is, its actions lessened competition.
Weight Rite was unsuccessful. The USGA had not violated any procedural fairness requirements nor had an unreasonable restraint of trade occurred. The court found that the USGA had an established procedure for the verification of new equipment, whereby golf equipment manufacturers may, prior to marketing a product, obtain a ruling from the USGA as to whether the product conforms to the Rules of Golf. Given that Weight Rite had not availed itself of this procedure, despite notification to do so from the USGA, injunctive relief was not available to the plaintiff.
Gilder v PGA Tour Inc
Gilder v PGA Tour Inc concerned, at the time, the most popular selling golf club in the world, the ‘Ping Eye 2′. This club was developed following an amendment in 1984 whereby the United States Golf Association had permitted the manufacture of clubs containing grooves that were in the shape of a U (as opposed to a V) – this rule change coming about because of technical improvements in the way clubs were manufactured, rather than manufacturers seeking to gain an innovative advancement to their clubs. This contrasted with earlier clubs where the grooves were all the shape of a V- a diagrammatic representation from Figure XI of the current rules of golf shown below.
In 1985 a number of players complained that the U-grooves had detracted from the skill of the game. The specific allegation was that U-grooves imparted more spin on the golf ball, particularly when hitting from the rough. The USGA conducted further tests and whilst they considered that more spin was added to the golf ball by the U-grooves, not enough information was available to ban clubs with this type of face pattern. However, the USGA did amend how it would measure the spaces between the grooves (the so-called groove to land ratio) and this had the effect of banning the ‘Ping-Eye 2′ – with this rule applying to all USGA tournaments from 1990.
Gilder and seven other professionals, funded by the manufacturer of the ‘Ping-Eye 2′ (Karsten Manufacturing Corporation), began proceedings against the PGA (the administrative body for professional golf tournaments in the United States of America) for adopting the rule that led to the banning of the club. They alleged that the actions of the PGA and its directors violated §1 and §2 of the Sherman Act and Arizona antitrust laws.
To support its case, Karsten presented, in the United States Court of Appeal, economic evidence that there had been no negative impact for the PGA Tour by professionals using the ‘Ping-Eye 2.’ This included a quantitative study that the percentage of money won by players using the golf club was less than the percentage of players not using the club. Furthermore, there was no proof that Ping golf clubs led to a greater number of players getting their balls to the green in less than regulation.The evidence of the professionals was as expected – that changing clubs would adversely hurt their game, with this impacting on prize money won and endorsement income. By contrast, the PGA considered that success for Karsten would irreparably damage its standing as the governing body. If their reputation were diminished, it would then have difficulty formulating rules for the conduct of tournaments under its control. However, the Court in comparing the harm done to the manufacturer and the player, as against the PGA Tour found in favour of the manufacturer. The damage done to the prestige and reputation of the PGA paled in comparison with the financial harm to the players and Karsten. An injunction was granted preventing the ban of the club going ahead and with this in mind, both the USGA and the PGA settled the outstanding litigation with Karsten. This saw Karsten acknowledging the USGA as the principal rule making body, the PGA as the administrative organisation in charge of tournaments with an independent equipment advisory committee established to oversee the introduction of innovations. Both sides claimed victory – the USGA and PGA retained their positions as the authoritative rule-setters for golf and tournament play, the manufacturer and players able to continue to use the ‘Ping-Eye 2.’
With this background in mind, this paper will consider the application of Australian competition (or antitrust) law to the restrictions presently imposed by the regulators within the current Rules of Golf. Are these restrictions hampering competition in the market place and serving to dampen the innovative market in golf clubs. Do they prevent ground-breaking products from entering the competitive fray, and will the deference shown to the sporting regulators in the United States (with Gilder v PGA Tour the exception rather than the rule), be followed if Australian litigation was to occur? Specifically, within the Australian context, does ss45/4D (broadly similar to §1 of the Sherman Act 1890 (US)) and s46 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (equivalent to §2 of the Sherman Act 1890 (US)) prevent Golf Australia (the national administrator of Golf in Australia) from endorsing the technology restrictions imposed by the United States Golf Association and the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews?
The Rules of Golf
The USGA and the R&A have collaborated to issue a joint statement of principles concerning advancements in technology. With a focus on what is perceived as golf’s traditions, the rule-makers indicate a continued preference for a single set of rules and the need for these Rules to enhance the skill of the player rather than the quality of the equipment. With this in mind, the Rules of Golf state:
“4-1(a):
The player’s clubs must conform with this Rule and the provisions, specifications and interpretations set forth in Appendix II.”Appendix II then establishes, over the course of eleven pages, the rules regarding the design of clubs, with, for example, clause 4(c) being of contemporary concern because of its effect in limiting the spring-like effect of golf clubs.
“The design, material and/or construction of, or any treatment to, the clubhead (which includes the club face) must not:
have the effect of a spring which exceeds the limit set forth in the Pendulum Test Protocol on file with the R&A; or incorporates features or technology including, but not limited to, separate springs or spring features, that have the intent of, or the effect of, unduly influencing the clubhead’s spring effect; or unduly influence the movement of the ball.”
The Pendulum Test Protocol then sets out that a driving club is to be impacted several times by a small steel pendulum (see diagram 2). The time between the impact of the clubhead on the pendulum is then recorded, with this time directed related to the flexibility of the clubhead. The time cannot exceed certain parameters.
Pendulum Test Protocol Mechanism
The length golf balls can travel is also restricted. Appendix III, clause 5 provides that the “The initial velocity of the ball must not exceed the limit specified (test on file) when measured on apparatus approved by the [the regulator].”
These rules apply in Australia with the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews, through its rules making entity (the R&A Rules Limited) delegating to Golf Australia the role of administering the Rules of Golf within Australia.
Current Technology Debates
As noted the most recent debate between manufacturers and the regulatory bodies concerns the so-called spring-like effect of club faces. The creation and fusion of new materials in the manufacturing process has reduced the distortion that occurs to a golf ball on impact. By reducing this (through the club-face giving slightly and then rebounding), an overall increase in distance was able to be achieved. Until recently, there had been no adequate measure to test this effect, but with the introduction of the Pendulum Test Protocol, the USGA and the R&A now have the opportunity to measure this accurately. However, the introduction of these measures led to a sharp decline in the share price of golf club manufacturers, and “[a]s one investment analyst commented, ‘if a governing body tells a leading-edge technology company that they can’t improve technology, it puts them out of business.’ This debate stands at the fore of golf, with the industry view provided by the President of Karsten Manufacturing:
“If the USGA restricts innovation, it will artificially restrict competition. Golfers will no longer receive the best possible equipment and will incorrectly perceive that all golf drivers are the same and there is nothing new or improved. The lack of excitement from the game will decrease interest in golf…”
A second issue concerns the relationship between club face markings and the impact of the ball on the clubhead. As every golfer knows, inexorably connected to driving distance is accuracy. However, recent studies from the regulators highlighted that correlation between driving accuracy and success on the professional tours was no longer high, with further evidence illustrating the combination of current golf balls with a thin urethane cover had significantly increased the spin of the golf ball. This led to the Rules being tightened from January 1, 2008 (with this limiting the width, depth and spacing between grooves). However, non-conforming clubs can be used by non-elite golfers until 2024, with the professional golfers to adopt the rule from 2010.
One final contemporary topic concerns the degree to which the club should be able to twist upon impact (the so-called ‘moment of inertia’ (see diagram 3- this machine able to test how much a club twists upon impact)), the regulators suggesting that technology which limits the clubhead and shaft twisting will reduce the skill component of the game. The rules now provide that when the “…moment of inertia component around the vertical axis through the clubhead’s centre of gravity must not exceed 5900 g cm² (32.230 oz in²), plus a test tolerance of 100 g cm² (0.547 oz in²).” As noted by the R&A the purpose is to provide for protection “against unknown future developments…whilst allowing some technological evolution.”
Moment of Inertia Test Machine
Australian Antitrust Law
Australian antitrust (or, as it is known, competition law) derives from, though with substantially different wording than, the 1890 United States Sherman Act. Because of this, the previously mentioned litigation from the United States will be of distinct precedential value when the matters are litigated in Australia. In this section an examination is given of the applicability of ss45/4D and s46 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 to the scenario detailed above. Is Golf Australia, through its adoption of the Rules of Golf on a delegation from the regulators in breach of either of these provisions.?The application of ss45/4D of the Trade Practices Act 1974
Section 45(2) of the Trade Practices Act states that:
A corporation shall not:(a) make a contract or arrangement, or arrive at an understanding, if:(i) the proposed contract, arrangement or understanding contains an exclusionary provision; or(ii) a provision of the proposed contract, arrangement or understanding has the purpose, or would have or be likely to have the effect, of substantially lessening competition..
The latter part of this legislation can quickly be dismissed. In Australia, golf will not be seen as a discrete market of the purposes of antitrust analysis. For this reason an argument that there is a substantial lessening of competition (s45(2)(a)(ii)) by the imposition of technical restrictions for a particular sport is unsustainable.The per se exclusionary provision prohibition established by section 45(2)(a)(i) is somewhat equivalent to §1 of the Sherman Act 1890 (US) – however, one important difference can be noted. As Weight-Rite and Gilder highlight, the jurisdictional applicability of §1 of the Sherman Act 1890 cannot be argued. By contrast, it is suggested that this would not be the position in Australia. The critical difference between the Australian legislation and the United States section is that in the former nation, s45(3) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 requires a competitive market or that the cartel parties be in competition with each other. Whilst this does not require all parties to be competitors, with golf regulators not retailing or manufacturing golf clubs, the underlying sense of collusion so critical to s45 litigation is absent. The definition of exclusionary provision in s4D is even more explicit. This requires that the arrangement must be between people who are competitive with each other – thus mandating a horizontal component to the understanding.
A further reason for the unavailability of s45 is that sporting organisations will often be seen as single economic units, rather than distinct entities. The importance of this if the two bodies are not viewed as separate, collusion is not possible. United States authority supports this reasoning. For example, in Seabury Management Inc v Professional Golfers’ Association of America Inc., a trade show promoter (Seabury), brought an action against the Professional Golfers’ Association (PGA) and a member section, the Middle Atlantic Section Professional Golfers’ Association of America (MAPGA), alleging that a five year contract between Seabury and MAPGA gave Seabury the right to use MAPGA’s name and logo to conduct and promote a golf trade show anywhere in the United States. MAPGA claimed, on the other hand, that the contract limited any MAPGA-sponsored golf trade show to an area within the MAPGA’s territorial boundaries.
The case proceeded to trial with Seabury alleging, among other things, that both the PGA and MAPGA had colluded in violation of §§1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and of Maryland’s antitrust laws. Initially the jury returned a verdict for Seabury, finding that the PGA and MAPGA were not part of a single economic unit and that the PGA had conspired with MAPGA (and also with the Golf Manufacturers and Distributors Association) to illegally restrain trade. However, this was overturned on appeal. The Appellate Court concluded that the PGA and MAPGA were incapable of conspiring and that on this issue, judgment as a matter of law in their favour was appropriate. The court said that while the MAPGA is not a wholly-owned subsidiary of the PGA and these entities are separately incorporated, the evidence at trial established that the PGA and its member sections function as a single economic unit with the PGA possessing ultimate control over the actions of individual sections. The court found it significant that the sections are governed by the PGA Constitution, by policies adopted either at PGA annual meetings or by the PGA Board of Directors, and by other pertinent policy documents such as trademark licensing agreements. In addition, the sections’ actions must be approved by the PGA to ensure that they are in the best interests of the organisation as a whole. For example, when the MAPGA sought to enter into the contract and its amendments with Seabury, the PGA had to approve these actions, and in this instance the PGA did approve the contract.
The Application of s46 of the Trade Practices Act 1974
Another basis for possible antitrust breach by Golf Australia (through its unquestioning adoption of the Rules of Golf) is s 46:
“(46) A corporation that has a substantial degree of power in a market shall not take advantage of that power for the purpose of:a) eliminating or substantially damaging a competitor of the corporation or of a body corporate that is related to the corporation in that or any other market;b) preventing the entry of a person in that or any other market; orc) deterring or preventing a person from engaging in competitive conduct in that or any other market.”
The purpose of this section is clear. It is about protecting economic aims, promoting the competitive process and through that the consumer. Therefore does the regulatory control of golf equipment by Golf Australia depress competitive outcomes and reduce consumer (golfer) welfare? Have the Rules operated to depress the capacity of existing firms to innovate, and new firms to enter the market?
Three elements must be met before s46 can be successfully invoked.i) Market power by a corporation;ii) The corporation must take advantage of that market power;iii) And, the taking advantage must be for a proscribed purpose.
Market Power
It is suggested that Golf Australia has market power. As the monopolist regulatory agency for Australia (its authority derived from one of the two Leviathans of world golf (the R&A in this instance), Golf Australia can act by adopting rules free from the constraints of competition. Market power can also be established by contracts, arrangements or understandings that the corporation has with another party – in the case the agreement between Golf Australia and the R&A. This is supported by the significant barriers to entry that any new regulatory agency would have to establish – most notably affiliation with the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews or the United States Golf Association. One suspects that it simply would not be “rational or possible for new entrants to enter the market,” – golf also not interchangeable with other sports.
Has there been a Taking Advantage
Assuming that market power has been established, the next query becomes whether there has been a taking advantage of that market power. In Pacific National (ACT) Limited v Queensland Rail, the Federal Court enunciated 10 principles as a guide to the construction of the phrase “take advantage” in s46 of the Trade Practices Act 1974.
1. There must be a sufficiency of the connection, or a causal connection, between the market power and the conduct complained.2. If the impugned conduct has an objective business justification, this will go against the existence of a relevant connection between the market power and the conduct.3. The words “take advantage” do not encompass conduct that has the purpose of protecting market power but no other connection.4. In deciding whether a firm has taken advantage, one must ask how it would have behaved if it lacked power and whether it could have behaved in the same way in a competitive market.5. It may be proper to conclude that a firm is taking advantage of market power where it does something that is materially facilitated by the existence of the power.6. The conduct must have given the firm an advantage it would not have had in the absence of market power.7. The test may be whether the conduct was necessarily an exercise of market power.8. One of the difficulties in determining what constitutes taking advantage stems from the need to distinguish between monopolistic practices and vigorous competition.9. The purpose of s46 is the promotion of competition — it is concerned with the protection of competition, not competitors.10. It is dangerous to proceed from a finding of proscribed purpose to a conclusion of the existence of a substantial degree of market power that can be taken advantage of — to do so will ordinarily be to invert the reasoning process.
In other words s 46 is not directed at size or at competitive behaviour, as such. What is prohibited, rather, is the misuse by a corporation of its market power. In addition, s46(4)(a) provides that the reference to power in s 46(1) is a reference to market power – the power to be taken advantage of must be market power and not some other type of power.
A corporation which satisfies the threshold test by reason of its market power is not permitted by s. 46(1) to take advantage of that power for the purpose of one or other of the objectives set out in paras. (a), (b) and (c).
The term take advantage in this context indicates:
that the corporation is able, by reason of its market power, to engage more readily or effectively in conduct directed to one or other of the objectives in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c);
it is better able, by reason of its market power, to engage in that conduct;its market power gives it leverage which it is able to exploit and this power is deployed so as to ‘take advantage of’ the relative weakness of other participants or potential participants in the market.
Whether this is so in a particular case is a matter to be inferred from all the circumstances. In so doing, three critical points must be made:i) In determining whether there has been an objective taking advantage of market power, the phrase is not meant to imply that there must be a hostile or malicious intent to the use of the market power. There is to be no ‘indefinite moral qualification’ to the phrase ‘taking advantage’. Section 46 is not dealing with social policy.ii) To answer the question whether there has been a taking advantage, the counterfactual is explored, – that is, would the regulatory authorities have acted in the same way in competitive conditions. Conduct that may not normally be of concern, can “take on exclusionary connotations when practiced by a monopolist.”iii) The final critical point is that it is not permissible to establish a proscribed purpose and then to reverse engineer from this to find that there has been a taking advantage of market power. Taking advantage is a separate element that must be proven exclusively of any proscribed purpose. To do something other than this is to flaw the analysis. It is not possible to conclude that because one has the proscribed purpose of eliminating a competitor, that they have taken advantage of market power.
“Competitors almost always try to ‘injure’ each other…This competition has never been a tort… and these injuries are the inevitable consequence of the competition s46 is designed to foster.”
With these principles in mind, would (or could) Golf Australia have acted in a different way, if the market conditions were competitive? Arguably, the answer is no. Golf is a global sport at both professional and amateur level and with the control, financial influence, and contemporary dominance of the USGA and the R&A, Golf Australia would have to act the same way in a competitive market. The potential for Australia, despite our relative success on the world stage, to develop or go it alone in terms of equipment and rule regulation would not exist. With major American companies dominating world golf club manufacture, the presence of a second regulatory body, competing with Golf Australia would not alter the fact that sporting equipment regulation would still be mandated by overseas entities. A new entity, (as with Golf Australia) simply would not have the political or financial strength to act differently than that dictated by the USGA and the R&A.
For a Proscribed Purpose
Assuming that market power and the taking advantage of this was established, the third element is that Golf Australia would have had to have acted for a proscribed purpose. Can it be said that Golf Australia (a non-profit entity) has objectively acted to eliminate, hinder or somehow prevent competition in a market. This requirement is arguably more easily met in the context of ‘for profit’ organisations. In Monroe Topple & Associates v Institute of Chartered Accountants the non-profit nature of the Institute did not necessarily lead to a finding of an improper purpose, but “[did] tend to point against such a finding.” It is suggested that it would be difficult to establish the purpose element. Golf Australia gains nothing by putting golf equipment manufacturers out of business – indeed it would seem to be in the interests of the regulator to promote healthy innovative competition amongst the manufacturers, with this leading to reduced prices for clubs and growth in the number of players. In a different context, a similar conclusion was reached by the Full Federal Court in Australasian Performing Rights Association Ltd (APRA) v Ceridale Pty Ltd. APRA refused to provide a licence for a nightclub unless unpaid fees by Ceridale were paid. While its actions may have led to a nightclub closing, its purpose was not to put the company out of business, but simply to preserve the integrity of its licence system. By analogy, the role of Golf Australia in endorsing the rules of the USGA and the R&A is not about putting golf equipment manufacturers out of business, but about preserving what it perceived to be the traditions of the game.
An Objective Business Justification
Given what has been previously outlined, a breach of s46 appears unlikely. Whilst Golf Australia would have market power, it could not be shown that it would have acted differently in a competitive market (hence no taking advantage of that power), nor could it be demonstrated that it acted for a proscribed purpose. However, it is suggested that there is an even stronger basis by which Golf Australia would be able to defeat any allegation that it had taken advantage of its market power. This relies on Golf Australia establishing an objective legitimate business justification as to why it has accepted and promulgated these technical rules as the basis for regulation of golf equipment in this country. If this justification is accepted, then the conclusion is that there has been no taking advantage of market power – the business was simply doing what would normally be done in a competitive market. In essence, it is the flipside of the counterfactual test, but in this context appeals to the reason why sporting administrators and regulators are needed – that is to establish and run fair competitive competitions and to encourage participation in the sport by all, with results determined on skill and not on luck. It seeks to connect the conduct of the market participants to