With springtime golf season embracing all of the country, now seems an appropriate opportunity to remind the truly hard core that too much golf can be detrimental to a stable home life. Excerpts from two divorce cases provide a cautionary tale.

From Missouri, we learn about the marriage ending frustrations of Mr. and Mrs. Frank during the late 1940′s:

"Plaintiff liked to play golf and it was his practice to engage in that sport twice a week during the golfing season. He would play on Saturday and Sunday afternoons. Defendant objected to plaintiff playing golf, contending that he should stay home on those occasions. The final separation resulted from a quarrel with respect to plaintiff's participation in a golf tournament at St. Joseph, Missouri. He stated that when he was preparing to leave for this tournament his wife told him: "If you leave here now, don't ever come back." He further testified that he then advised her, "I am going to go anyway." He testified: "So I started packing my clothes and as I packed them in the suit case she would take them and throw them on the floor and I would put them back in the suit case, and that went on a couple of times and she picked up a screwdriver, which I had been using for home repairs, which had been lying out in the open, and she picked it up in a menacing manner, as if to stab me. I dropped my clothes and took it away from her and in the course of the struggle she bit me on the forearm. * * * Then she turned loose of the screwdriver. I took it away. As a matter of fact, I took it with me to prevent her from using it again, and packed my clothes and left. * * * I went out and spent the night at my mother's, and the next morning I left for St. Joseph." Frank v. Frank, 238 S.W.2d 912 (Mo. App.1951)

However, the Frank residence appears positively tame compared to the drama of the Ross family in Polk County, Iowa, in the Roaring '20′s:

As Mr. Ross testified about his wife, "she was profane and abusive toward me, and called me vile names. Her pet name for me was son of a bitch, which she emphasized occasionally with swear words." He further testified that "he played golf three or four different times against his wife's protest, and on one occasion, when he went out to play golf with his brother on Sunday, when he got home she said, 'God damn you, why don't you stay around home instead of going out to play golf on Sunday'; that, when he complained about her not waiting for him when he was late to his meals, and said he did not like cold food, she said he could eat down town, and swore about it, and threw a butcher knife at him. He testified that she was crying and mad; that she was that way most of the time; that one Sunday, when he had gone out to play golf, and got back about 12 o'clock, she did not want to get any dinner; said if he could go out and play golf she would be damned if she would work; and she did not get him any dinner; that he then walked down to the river, and when he came back she was lying undressed on the kitchen floor, with all of the gas burner turned on...[and that when it happened again] he said, 'I told her if she wanted to commit suicide there was no need of blowing up the house.'" Ross v. Ross, 216 N.W. 22 (Iowa 1927)

Everyone, enjoy the wonderful weather, hit 'em straight, and don't forget your loved ones at home.

From a legal standpoint, one would be hard pressed to argue Ms. Rometty's membership exclusion is unlawful. Private clubs and organizations may limit their memberships on the basis of gender, race, religion and other criteria. Indeed, many people would agree that it is appropriate for a group of men to share a weekly poker game, for women executives to network among themselves, and for Lithuanian-Americans to perpetuate their culture. Largely, the public accepts the existence of closed memberships when they are viewed as providing opportunities to foster positive aspects of member identity.

However, when organizations are viewed as promoting exclusion, public perception of their acceptability changes. A country club that largely limits its membership to white, Christian males finds it difficult to offer as a rationale that its motivation is to beneficially enhance the racial, religious or gender identity of its membership.

While lawful, a private club's discriminatory membership policy may come with a price. For example, last December, the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability of the Judicial Conference of the United States sanctioned a federal bankruptcy judge for maintaining membership in a private club that denied membership to women and African-Americans. The judge was found to have violated the Code of Conduct for federal judges, which provides that "a judge should not hold membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion or national origin."

Similarly, golf's governing bodies--including the PGA Tour, the PGA of America, the USGA and the LPGA--have policies that prevent them from hosting events at clubs with discriminatory membership policies.

Viewed in this context, it is not surprising that Augusta National finds its membership policies the target of criticism. By hosting the Masters, the club creates a public spectacle without making itself a public facility.

Just as the club lives with this conflict, so do those of us who partake--some would say enable--by watching, playing, networking and marketing the tournament. We enjoy the spectacle, while professing discomfort about the club's membership policy.

The complaint alleges that Golf Galaxy opted to sponsor a Women's Night event, where, for a two hour period on April 20, the store provided "exclusive offers on merchandise, free $10 Golf Galaxy gift cards, fee goodie bags, access to on-sitemanufacturer representatives from major golf equipment brands, signature Paula Creamer adidasgolf shoe giveaway, chances to win a Nike Karma 12-ball pack when demonstrating a golf club, giftcard raffles, gifts with purchase, refreshments, 'and chances to win (1) a Nike Golf "Head-to-ToePackage' including golf clothing, shoes, and balls, (2) a Taylor Made 'Head-to-Toe Package'including golf clothing, clubs, bag, and balls, and (3) a set of Adams Golf clubs."

According to the complaint, Golf Galaxy prevented men from shopping at the store during this two hour period, unless they were  husbands of women attending the event. Thus, as the complaint asserts, "female millionaires such as Nancy Pelosi or Sarah Palin would have been allowed into Golf Galaxy's stores and provided with the gift cards, gifts, refreshments, andopportunities to win thousands of dollars worth of merchandise, while male consumers, who mayComplaint for Injunctive Relief and have recently lost their jobs, would have been denied entry in Golf Galaxy."

The lawsuit invokes California's Unruh Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex or marital status.

The last time we encountered the attorney representing plaintiffs, he had filed a similar action alleging sex discrimination against Eagle Vines Vineyards & Golf Club arising out of slightly discounted greens fees offered to women on Ladies Day. That posting generated substantial discussion among readers concerning issues of gender equality, and the propriety-regardless of the substantive merit of the allegations-of subjecting the golf club to litigation. (Parenthetically, the plaintiff in the Eagle Vines lawsuit, Steven Frye, is one of the plaintiffs in the new Golf Galaxy lawsuit.)

The Golf Galaxy and Eagle Vines lawsuits present an interesting juxtaposition to the current Augusta National controversy surrounding the membership non-invitation to Ginnie Rometty. Augusta National's departure from its established precedent of granting green jacket status to the reigning IBM Chief Executive Officer suggests a current determination to maintain a gender discriminatory membership policy.

From a legal standpoint, judicial decisions--based on constitutional principles that guarantee rights of free association--permit private clubs to slice and dice their membership rolls pretty much as they please. Similarly, various statutes prohibit sex-based discrimination in public facilities. Whatever the underlying legal arguments that allow for disparate treatment, there is an inescapable irony to the way our legal system and society permit the debasing exclusion of women from private clubs, while subjecting  clubs such as Eagle Vines and retailers such as Golf Galaxy to judicial sanction for modest attempts to further the interests of women in golf.

In 2009 Robert and Katherine Brady purchased a home in Hamilton, Montana.  The home, which was built in 2005, has the good or bad fortune (depending on whether one aspires to be a seller of used golf balls), to border the 18th hole of the public Hamilton Golf Club. By their reckoning, the Brady homestead serves as the landing area for 1300 sliced golf balls per year.

In October 2011, Attorney Alex Beal, on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Brady, sent an impassioned letter to the Hamilton Golf Course Board of Directors and the Board of County Commissioners. Attorney Beal explained that the incoming golf balls "routinely hit the house and roof, breaking windows, denting and warping window frames, hitting vehicles in the driveway (to do this they have to clear the house first), nearly hitting multiple contractors, the Bradys, and their guests, and generally depriving the Bradys of the use of their property."

Confronting the troublesome fact that Mr. and Mrs. Brady elected to purchase their home cognizant of its location, Attorney Beal, characterizing the condition as "potentially lethal," offered a survey of case decisions that ostensibly supported his argument that remedial steps should be taken.  Suggesting that "there are no viable defenses to your liability," Attorney Beal stated that, absent satisfactory corrective action, "you should expect to be served with a complaint seeking to enjoin the use of the 18th hole as well as for damages." Choosing an interesting metaphor, Attorney Beal concluded with an admonition that "the ball is now in your court."

When no satisfactory solution was forthcoming, the Bradys and their counsel followed through with their promise, filing suit. As part of their legal action, they sought a temporary injunction to shut down or modify the 18th hole.

The plaintiffs' asserted belief that "there are no viable defenses to liability" proved not to be shared by the judge. Faced with the fact that the 18th hole had been around for 25 years before the Bradys' home was built, District Judge James Haynes concluded that concluded that the likelihood that the Bradys will win the nuisance part of the lawsuit is low, and denied the request for an injunction..

Judge Haynes observed that Mr. Brady, a former contractor, and Mrs. Brady, a former real estate agent,  should have known to make inquiry about the status of incoming golf balls. He also observed that the Bradys can reduce the risk of injury by installing netting screens near the home.

The injunction proceeding was a preliminary matter, so the case will continue to work toward an ultimate trial. For now, however, those playing at Hamilton Golf Club will be able to play more than 17 holes. and the Bradys can defray their legal costs and the installation of netting by selling used golf balls per year on Ebay.

Golfers at Meadow Creed Golf Club in Dracut, Massachusetts may soon qualify for a walking program that exceeds what the USGA envisoned.

Meadow Creek does not own the parking lot that services the club. Rather, it leases the parking lot from Realty Financial Partners, a real estate investment firm located in nearby Wellesley. It seems as though the golf club is several months behind in its rent payments to the landlord. In response, the landlord has installed barriers that block access to the parking lot.

This past week, the club owner, having unsuccessfully attempted to involve town officials in a landlord-tenant manner, sought judicial relief. Last Thursday, a Superior Court judge, after hearing argument, took the matter under advisement.

With Meadow Creek scheduled to open on April 1, the club needs to hope for a favorable judicial decision, or a successful negotiation of its differences with the landlord.

The USGA Walking Program contemplates golfers driving to the course and walking while they play. Conversely, Meadow Creek golfers face the prospect of walking to the course and riding while they play. Will they qualify as honorary members of the USGA Walking Program? At least they should get a special bag tag.

The website for Mission Del Lago golf course, owned by the city of San Antonio, describes the course as "a wonderful layout that all golfers will appreciate. Located south of San Antonio near Mitchell Lake, we are proud to offer a full service golf facility at this location. Mission Del Lago features 18 holes of golf, a large practice green, and a driving range."

Attorneys for the city might want to consider modifications to the website description in light of recent events. Not only is the course "near Mitchell Lake," it's also a stone's throw-or a fired bullet-from the "A Place to Shoot" shooting range and gun shop.

Not only does the golf course feature the "18 holes of golf, a large practice green, and a driving range" touted by its website, but it also offers incoming projectiles from its neighbor to the west. At least that's the allegation contained in a lawsuit filed by the golf course management company against the shooting range.

On March 4, Justin Flores was playing the 12th hole at Mission Del Lago when, according to published reports, "he felt a sudden, burning pain in his chest." As Flores described it, "I thought I got hit with a golf ball. I saw a little bit of smoke coming out of my chest." Upon looking closer, Flores was confronted with a protruding bullet that had lodged in his sternum. Said Flores, "it kind of freaked me out." What a surprise.

At the time, A Place to Shoot denied responsibility, suggesting, perhaps, that someone hunting a feral hog (Augusta, this is not) may have been the shooter. However, nine days later, it happened again, as golfers reported a bullet whizzing over their heads.  A Place to Shoot responded by closing its rifle range.

While Mission Del Lago may wish to make certain changes to its website description, we certainly agree with the statement that course features "make it a unique experience that you won't find anywhere else on the Alamo City Golf Trail."

Rather than subjecting the dispute to the uncertainties of the judicial process, the town has negotiated agreements for lower property valuations, in exchange for agreements by the clubs to preserve the courses as open space. Additionally, if the clubs decide to sell the property, the town will have a right of first refusal to purchase. The obvious benefit for the town is the ability to prevent the golf courses from being developed for residential and/or commercial purposes.

The town first entered into such arrangements a year ago with the Country Club of Darien and Wee Burn Country Club.

Recently, the town reached agreement with Woodway Country Club. The agreement resolved a four year lawsuit. The resolution provides for a retroactive reduction in assessment of $1.9 million, which translates into tax savings for the club. The town also has agreed, going forward, to value the property as open space, rather than land subject to development. In exchange for these benefits, the club has committed to using the land as a golf course or open space for the next thirty years, and the town will have a forty year right of first refusal.

Darien's approach to the assessment issue reflects a recognition of the impact that recent economic circumstances have had on valuations and financial burdens faced by clubs. While accommodating these circumstances, the town has taken steps to preserve the community from overdevelopment for the ensuing decades.

Other communities and golf courses may wish to consider the Darien model as an alternative to legal battles over valuation issues.

Their offense? According to former Hermitage member Thomas Talbot, the defendants defamed him and damaged his reputation by, ready for this, lowering his handicap.

Unlike the crazies buying equipment and contorting bodies as directed by instructional magazines, Mr. Talbot apparently does not aspire to lower scores. To the contrary, he claims that, by providing him with a 7.7 stroke reduction in handicap over five years, the defendants effectively were branding him a cheat. The 10 million pounds he seeks as damages should go a long way toward restoring his reputation.  He could also pay for a few golf lessons, and further lower the handicap.

I take personal pleasure that the saga of Mr. Talbot has led me to a kindred spirit in Ireland, Attorney Larry Fenelon. Addressing the costs of this litigation debacle-500,000 pounds to the defendants-Attorney Fenelon observed how clubs would benefit from the inclusion of a mediation and/or arbitration provision in their governing documents. According to Attorney Fenelon, any club leader

"should check themselves if they are thinking 'this could never happen to us'. It can, it does and it may. The key ingredients are (i) an aggrieved principled person and (ii) a haphazard dispute resolution process. The prevention is so simple, so quick and so utterly cost effective. It's a no brainer."

Ostensibly with this in mind, the Farmers Branch Planning and Zoning Commission decided that ordinances designed to preserve the views were worthy of municipal attention. Thus, P&Z has proposed two ordinances. One would prohibit the location of accessory buildings and garages closer than 15 feet from the Brookhaven property line. The other would require that boundary fences be made of black decorative metal and be 75 percent transparent.  With these ordinances enacted, residents-including those adjacent to homes with accessory buildings and fences-would have largely unimpeded views.

While apparently most of the residents favor these ordinances, the world being what it is, objections have been made.  Some, rather than view the proposals as benefiting the residents, see them as promoting Brookhaven, at the expense of their property rights. One, a tea partier perhaps, proclaimed that "this is too much government say over properties."

Another, viewing safety as the major concern, explained that the ordinances would lead to "more invasion of golfers retrieving their golf balls + home damage...We have had at least 16 instances of damage." , including the right to erect a privacy fence. "

And, my favorite, expressing the unspoken sentiment of many, cut to the heart of the matter: "Many of the times while we are in the back yard we have seen golfers lean up against a tree and use the bathroom, that is not a pretty view."

Perhaps if the ordinances were revised to provide that the accessory buildings could include Porta-Johns, all would be in agreement.

Ordinarily, I would avoid commenting about the personal misfortune suffered by a golfer who was impaled by the shaft of a broken club, especially when the man's femoral artery was ruptured. However, reports are that the man is out of the hospital and recuperating, presenting an opportunity to drive home a point of golf etiquette.

Point of Etiquette: Slower players should let faster players play through.

Ancillary point: Violations do not warrant physical assault.

To be fair, the events that occurred at Fort Worth's Resort on Eagle Mountain Lake remain murky. A spokesman for the Sheriff's Department stated that two groups of golfers converged on the 13th tee. The second group (a threesome) asked the first group (a foursome) if they could play through. Presumably, the answer was "no" (or something to that effect), because a fight broke out, a club was broken, and-according to the spokesman- "the shaft end of the golf club became impaled into the groin area of one of the men." Ouch.

Before firing up the judicial machinery, however, please note that the cause of the injury remains under investigation. Apparently, the person calling 911 for assistance stated that the man had fallen onto the club. I wonder if the caller was a member of the foursome or the threesome????

The incident reminds me of a legal case I once read about. The North Carolina Supreme Court's decision in  Everett v. Goodwin, 201 N.C. 734 (1931) describes what happened:

"The plaintiff and his companion [Mr. Elkins], playing what is called a twosome, began their game, and, before they had proceeded very far, the defendant Goodwin, with two companions came upon the course and began playing a threesome behind the plaintiff.

Plaintiff testified as follows: "As we were starting on the fifth hole I drove, and Mr. Elkins then drove, and I got a bad drive on my first ball, which did not go any further than from here to the door back there, and I went out and was preparing to drive again and as I did I looked around and Mr. Goodwin was getting ready to drive his ball off and was swinging, and I hollered, 'Look out, don't drive this way,' and as he drove, the ball went over my head and he hollered and said, 'Get out of the way."

Plaintiff further testified that the defendant and his companions were driving balls in and about him and his companion from the fifth hole up to the fourteenth. The occurrence at the fourteenth hole is narrated by the plaintiff as follows: "They were right there on the tee with us when we finished, and as soon as we would put our ball down and drive off before we had gone more than fifty feet they would have their ball down starting to drive it without any warning whatsoever. In fact, they were so close to us that we did not walk down the middle of the fairway for fear they would hit us. They would drive just immediately after we drove our ball.

As we reached the sixteenth tee and Mr. Elkins made his drive, and I made my drive, as I stepped off, a couple of them, I do not know just which it was that had the ball already teed up ready to swat it, I walked over the edge of the fairway in the rough and I had not gone more than fifteen feet when they had driven their ball and Mr. Goodwin put his ball up to drive and he was drawing back to hit it, and I made the remark, "You are liable to hit me.' I made it loud enough for all to hear. I said, "Better get out of the way, he is liable to hit us,' and I got off the fairway on the edge of the rough, and when I did he drove the ball and the ball hit me on this knee-cap and as it hit me on the knee it knocked me off both feet on the ground and I immediately got up as quick as I could and I said, 'I believe it broke my leg.' Mr. Goodwin walked down there and said he didn't think it was broken and didn't think it was hurt much."

Confronted with these less than favorable facts, the defendant made the rather ingenious argument that he was not hitting into a twosome because the two groups had merged into a fivesome and therefore the rules of engagement were different, as accidents among groups sometimes happen. The jury, however, didn't buy the argument and the Supreme Court refused to second guess the jury. However, the court could not resist one final salvo:

Defendant testified that the parties merged into a five-some from the fifth to the sixteenth hole, and between these said holes the game proceeded "strictly according to honors." This is explained to mean that "the man who makes the lowest score is the man who has the honor of making the first play at the next hole." It does not appear who the "honor" man was at the sixteenth hole, but it is clear that the plaintiff had the "honor" of having his knee cap broken by a ball driven by the defendant, and it is obvious that thereafter all "honors" ceased.

I suspect most everyone by now has seen or heard the reports that Phil Mickelson is in hot pursuit of one or two anonymous internet posters who made scurrilous comments about him and his wife.

The legal proceedings Mickelson has commenced are informative in a couple of respects. On a general level, they show how the internet, with its decentralization and widespread dissemination of information, and the legal protection provided to the internet service providers, creates practical problems for someone claiming to have been defamed. In the dark ages, if a newspaper were to have published the Mickelson claims by the pseudonymous  "Fogroller" and "Longtitude" [sic], Mickelson could bring suit against the paper, end of story. Now, however, the victim must get to the original authors of the comments, and needs to commence legal action simply to identify and locate them.

The second area of interest is why Mickelson so vigorously is pursuing the authors. Perhaps it's no more complicated than he is rightfully angry and wants to create a lifetime of misery for "Fogroller" and "Longtitude". Or perhaps there is the sense that, especially with the Tiger saga, the failure to respond will lead some to believe what was said.

If the goal, once the culprits are identified, is to file a defamation suit, Mickelson places himself on tricky ground. Since a defamation action seeks damages for harm to reputation,  one's entire life-which is the basis for one's reputation-can become an open book during the discovery process. Even if there are no skeletons lurking, I find it hard to believe that Mickelson will want to subject himself to the prying of a lawyer who will be delighted to take on the defense of Fogroller and Longtitude for no compensation. So, my prediction is that, once Mickelson unmasks Fogroller and Longtitude, the world will move on and no defamation suit will be filed.

You know you're in trouble when, five minutes prior to your scheduled presentation at the PGA Merchandise Show, the public address system announces that the fashion show is about to begin. I can't fathom why that would be more of a grab than the scintillating topic of "Avoiding the Litigation Time Bomb," but, for some misguided souls, it apparently was.  Sigh....

On the other hand, crowds very much were in evidence this past Thursday at the Palm Beach County Governmental Center. By 8:30 a.m., the building was overflowing with retirees from Century Village present in a show of force to demonstrate their opposition to a plan to convert a currently unused golf course into a proposed town-center development of retail shops, office space and 689 homes.

At a December zoning hearing, 466 residents submitted comment cards requesting an opportunity to speak, with 433 of the cards indicating opposition to the project. By the time of last week's hearing, county commissioners had received 2,046 post cards voicing opposition, dramatically overshadowing 301 cards presented by the developers in support of the project.

Observers described Thursday's event as raucous:

"The commission chambers is at its 150-person capacity, another 400-plus people are in rooms watching video feeds, while others are listening to audio without video. Members of the crowd are perched on any available seat or table top.

Every so often, the crowd let out a loud 'whoop!' or waved their fists in the air in response to comments by speakers."

In the face of the overwhelming opposition, the commissioners tabled the proposal until October, in order to give the developers an opportunity to find an acceptable compromise with residents.

If that doesn't work, the developers perhaps should consider scheduling a competing fashion show at the date and time of the next public meeting.

As with many things Trump-related, however, conflict is not far away. In the case of Palos Verdes, the Trump organization has been engaged in a five year struggle to plant a row of tall evergreen trees along the side of the club's driving range.Neighborhood resistance has focused on concerns about the potential obstruction of ocean views.

The landscaping approval may have been complicated by a history of controversy between the club and the city.  A number of years ago, the Trump organization balked at removing trees that, with approval, had been temporarily placed at the end of the driving range during a televised golf tournament. When the city took steps to remove the trees--which were obstructing neighbor's ocean vies--Mr. Trump called the neighbors' homes "horrendous" while characterizing the 12- to 14-foot trees as "very small bushes."

More recently, Trump subsidiaries instituted litigation against the city over its refusal to permit the construction of luxury homes along the golf course.

Trump and the city are not letting these differences color the new landscaping request. The Trump organization has obtained city council approval, subject to restrictions that impose a height limitation on the trees. The club will be required to keep the trees trimmed at the mandated height. Don't expect to see Donald on a stepladder with pruning shears.

Next month will mark the 40th anniversary of the most famous 6 iron shot ever struck. On Feb. 6, 1972, conditions were dry and windless when Alan Shepard, forced to swing one handed because of a bulky space suit, made imperfect, though legendary, contact on the lunar surface. He actually struck two shots, shanking the first (never happened to me) and then hitting the second one a couple hundred yards in the reduced gravity.

NASA and lunar memorabilia are in the news for legal reasons this week. In November, a company called Heritage Auctions sold for $388,000 the checklist used by astronaut James Lovell during the Apollo 13 flight he commanded. The checklist included the handwritten calculations made by Lovell to guide the damaged ship back to Earth following the onboard explosion that occurred while en route to the moon.

After getting wind of the auction, NASA -- as it has done in other instances -- questioned whether Lovell or NASA had lawful title to the checklist. Pending the results of an investigation, the checklist is being held in Heritage's vault.

This news about the Apollo 13 checklist made me think about Alan Shepard. While the golf balls remained on the moon, the club made the journey back to Earth. Several years later, Shepard donated the club to the United States Golf Association where it is displayed in the Arnold Palmer Center for Golf History at the USGA Museum in Far Hills, NJ. Cognizant of the value of the club, the USGA had it appraised for insurance purposes in 2007.

So, in light of the questions emerging about the Apollo 13 checklist, who has lawful rights to the club?

Unlike other lunar memorabilia, the 6 iron appears not to be entirely government issue. Keeping his plans secret from all but a handful, Shepard had a golf professional take a 6 iron club head and design a fitting that would enable Shepard to position the clubhead on a retractable instrument that was to be used on the lunar expedition. As Shepard recounted, in defense of his plan, "I'm going to pay for the golf balls, I'm going to pay for the clubhead, and there will be no expense to the taxpayer."

In 1996, long before the current issues arose, Shepard told the following story about the club:   "The Smithsonian said they were building a new exhibit in the Air and Space Museum and wanted to use my golf club. I said I was sorry, but I don't have it. I gave it away. There was silence at the other end of the line before they asked where. I said it went to the USGA where it ought to be. They said, 'Don't you know that it flew in a government spacecraft and it automatically becomes the property of the Smithsonian?' '"

At the time, the Smithsonian was placated with receiving a replica of the club. Let's see if things change. In the meantime, memorabilia hunters, I know where you can find two golf balls worth a hefty chunk of change.