It’s one thing to do the right thing. It’s something else figuring out what the right thing to do is.
That’s where it seems as if the USGA and the R&A have landed with their announcement last week that they intend to enact a new rule requiring the game’s best male golfers to play with what amounts to a limited-flight ball (one that can still fly 317 yards) when the calendar turns to 2026.
In trying to manage the game’s growing distance challenge at the top level – the emphasis on and accessibility of power has begun to distort the game and contort its venues – the rules makers have taken a dramatic step that has produced more shrieks than a mouse at a cotillion.
Many PGA Tour players responded as if they had been denied a free drop to which they felt entitled.
The PGA Tour itself issued a statement effectively saying, Not so fast, my friends.
Manufacturers – at least those that publicly acknowledged the news – were understandably defensive about the possibility of having to produce something that the public wouldn’t buy.
Almost immediately, there were questions and criticisms about how such legislation would negatively impact – all together now – growing the game.
It isn’t about growing the game.
It’s about the good of the game.
It feels as if the game’s balance has tilted too far toward power, maybe not for most of us, but this rule isn’t directed at the 99 percent.
“As custodians of our sport, we’re of the view that at the elite male level, both amateur and professional, we’ve crossed the Rubicon with regards to where hitting distance is but more importantly where it is trending, and it’s our responsibility as governing bodies to propose change to protect the long-term integrity of our sport,” said Martin Slumbers, CEO of the R&A.
Slumbers is correct.
The game at the elite level won’t be hurt by a small correction.
Not just because Rory McIlroy could hit driver, 9-iron to the par-5 16th hole at the Stadium Course in the Players Championship or because the par-5 13th at Augusta National will play 35 yards longer this year to account for the impact technology and personal trainers have had on how professional golf is played.
It feels as if the game’s balance has tilted too far toward power, maybe not for most of us, but this rule isn’t directed at the 99 percent. It is, however, about the direction the game has been heading and, if nothing changes, where it will be a generation down the road?
It’s easy to say this should have been addressed years ago, but it wasn’t, and kicking the can down the fairway won’t make it go away. Pretty soon, par-5s will become extinct at the highest level, and the idea of 8,000-yard golf courses seems less excessive than it should.
The USGA and the R&A, after extensive research and discussion, decided this is the best way forward and it affects far fewer players than reducing the size of driver heads and their sweet spots would.
The rules makers have their evidence. Those on the other side have their evidence. Power always should be an advantage in golf but not necessarily the biggest one, though selling the promise of more, more, more is a good pitch.
The truth is that bifurcation is built into the game. That’s why there are multiple sets of tees. It’s why club fitting is such a big deal. All golf clubs aren’t created equal. Neither are golf balls.
It’s easy to feel conflicted about this. I understand why the USGA and R&A think that it’s necessary. I also understand why the PGA Tour probably doesn’t want to do this. The same goes for the predictably cool response from manufacturers. It doesn’t require a business degree to know that marketing a product that the public doesn’t need doesn’t help the bottom line and complicates advertising.
There are still so many unanswered questions. Will it apply to men’s college golf where everyone seemingly hits rainbows? Beyond the U.S. Amateur, which major amateur events would use the model local rule?
Will it be required on every major professional tour? What if the PGA Tour and/or the DP World Tour say they won’t enforce the rule? We already know LIV Golf is going its own way.
If overpowering distance is such an issue, can’t it be mitigated by significantly narrowing fairways and growing hearty crops of rough along fairway edges starting at the 300-yard mark? But wouldn’t that force everyone to play from the same general spots and unfairly penalize the longer players?
How will tour players adjust to losing an estimated 15-18 yards off their tee shots? Will they need new driver specs? And 3-woods and changes all through their bags?
But don’t they adjust for altitude when they play in higher elevations, and don’t they account for the ball not going as far in the thick ocean air at Pebble Beach? And they would have nearly three years to prepare.
Will onsite tournament fans really know the difference between a tee shot that goes 320 yards and one that goes 338? Does anyone think the awe factor of watching McIlroy rip a tee shot will be lost?
And what about bifurcation?
But Titleist still will be Titleist. Callaway still will be Callaway.
It’s a remarkable game. Even with everything technology has done to make it easier – and modern equipment definitely has made the game easier – it’s still maddeningly difficult because operator error trumps technology.
This proposed change is intended to retain an element of the game’s mystique – gently resetting its balance – while making it more manageable in the future. Land and water are serious considerations now and down the line. It’s not just about skinny teenagers flying 3-woods 300 yards. It’s about what the game looks like for their kids.
When the discussion/argument period ends in mid-August, it’s possible the backlash will be enough to scuttle the proposal, though there is a sense the USGA and R&A are intent on making this happen, even if their championships and perhaps the Masters are the only ones who adopt the change.
Doing the right thing shouldn’t be hard, but it often is.
The same goes with finding the sweet spot.
That’s the case here.
E-MAIL RON
Top: Rory McIlroy leads the PGA Tour in driving distance.
Original photo: Oisin Keniry, Getty Images
photo illustration: barbara ivins-georgoudiou, ggp