What a great game we have. There is room for everyone – well, unless you get too strong and focus too much and figure out new ways to capitalize on your strengths in a way that maximizes the capacity of the equipment.
I have no doubt that the USGA’s Mike Whan and the R&A’s Martin Slumbers are truly interested in what they perceive to be what’s best for the game. However, it seems to me that the game has been evolving for the past 500-plus years, and that includes evolution toward players hitting it farther. As golf has attracted athletes into its ranks, and the incredible financial rewards now available have focused those athletes on maximizing their efforts, we see what is possible. It’s cool (“Decreasing ball distance lengthens golf’s health,” March 20 GGP).
This story reminds me of the scene in “Chariots of Fire,” where the Cambridge fathers chastise Harold Abrahams for crossing “the line” and making his efforts “professional.” After all, where is the honor in committing yourself to a goal and steadfastly pursuing it – hiring a coach? How ungentlemanly.
The USGA and R&A’s commitment to scoring by comparing players to par is what is making this an issue. Too many strokes under par is a problem. I struggle to understand why they were willing to scrap so many of the conventions in the rules, but now are stuck on the relevance of this arbitrary measurement of par. There are other ways to track play. Not as convenient for TV announcers or viewers, but I’m sure something could be figured out to make them feel better.
Grow greens that roll at about 7.5 on the Stimpmeter. Though I have no doubt there is a correlation between distance and scoring, I am certain the advances in agronomy – spearheaded by the USGA – have had a significant impact on the ability of players to make putts, plus the recent OK to touch the line of a putt. Stop watering, water more, eliminate the model local rule for lift, clean and place – hit the mud balls, for crying out loud. It’s not fair. It’s not supposed to be. That’s why we call it golf.
I grew up in golf watching David Duval figure out how to hit the “old ball” flat and far. We referred to his shots as BBs. He did it with wooden-headed drivers and balls stuffed with rubber bands. His imagination and creativity allowed him to turn his head downfield before impact to gain speed and better clubface angle through the shot. We saw Annika Sörenstam do a similar move.
Dick Fosbury, the late U.S. gold-medalist at the 1968 Olympics, looked at the high jump and decided there was a more efficient way to get over the bar. His “flop” technique is now the norm, and records keep getting set. The two-hour marathon is on the verge of being broken. Yes, it’s the shoes they wear that makes that possible. Maybe the marathon should be 27 miles today, just to keep up with the times.
Competitors figure a way. Let’s celebrate, and we can stop lamenting their success and stop thinking the new records mean the test needs to be more difficult (longer).
Why can’t we just acknowledge the skill these players are able to exhibit using the clubs and balls they get to play with (versus the ones I grew up with)? Let them shoot 59, 58 … 54 even. It would be fun to watch.
Thanks, Mike Whan and Martin Slumbers, for all that you do. I mean it. You help make this a game that we love so much. I just happen to be on the other side of this one.
Ron Philo Jr.
Vero Beach, Florida
(Philo, the 2006 PGA Professional champion, is a PGA of America member who works at Aurora Anguilla Resort and Golf Club in the British West Indies and Webster Golf Club in Webster, New York.)
This change is inevitable (“Decreasing ball distance lengthens golf’s health,” March 20 GGP).
Changes in a similar vein have been made in other sports. The javelin in track and field is now heavier because of the threat to the runners at the end of the field. It was decided that killing steeplechase runners with a javelin would be frowned upon when there was a simple solution. The tire manufacturers of F1 accepted that the tires now are made for individual tracks and have no value in the development of ordinary road tires, but they continued to make them because of the advertising potential. Golf ball manufacturers need to adopt the same attitude.
The equipment used by the “elite” golfers and the skill level they display cannot be maintained with the game as it is. The elite courses often can't be lengthened simply because they fill the available ground already. Developing new courses designed especially for the elite because they can hit the ball a long way is unrealistic.
The only constant is change. Professional sportsmen willingly adopted new technology because it improved their game. We have now gotten to a stage where something has to change. Continued developments will force another change some years down the line as techniques and club development negate the current proposed changes.
Field athletes had to learn to adapt, so why not golfers? I remember when the story was the “big ball” when introduced to golf. That went away. Instead of complaining, just get on with it. The prize money won’t diminish, but crowds might if there is nothing that the amateur can learn from the professional golfer when it comes to control rather than just distance.
Michael Beal
Selsey, England
Sorry, but fans will know that drives don’t go 338 anymore (“Decreasing ball distance lengthens golf’s health,” March 20 GGP). Baseball fans know when fly balls land on the warning track and not over the fence.
10,000 courses don’t need to go to 8,000 yards. Shortening most would improve pace of play. Most amateurs shouldn’t attempt more than 7,000 yards. Even though I would play Erin Hills at 6,000 yards, it’s highly likely that I’ll end up behind a group hitting 250 yards playing from the tips.
I’m treading on thin ice here, but the Augusta National model is a big part of the problem. Wide fairways and low rough are the maintenance issue. More waste areas and better turf management would do more to cut costs for courses than shortening the driver of the 0.1 percent players in the “elite” category. Isn’t maintenance and cost the crux of the USGA argument?
The last two weeks in Florida on the PGA Tour were on courses at 7,300 yards. Only one player got to 10 under, in spite of driving distance. Going for greens in two on the par-5s brought in more risk/reward for the fans on TV as well as around the greens. Any pro can lay up and put a wedge next to the pin and still make birdie. How boring would that be? I say, let them have at it – more fun.
There are limits for the elite athletes. Torque stresses on body joints are showing on relatively young players. Even clubhead speeds of 125-130 mph are inducing injuries. The PGA Tour average of 115 mph is approaching the limit of any player hoping for a career longer than that of an NFL tailback.
Why do I care? I can still use the technology from the pros in my TSR2 driver and the flight characteristics of the Pro V1 line. When the ball developers can come up with one ball that meets the 120 and 127 specs, I’m in. Until then, elite players don’t even buy their balls. I’d be crazy to buy a ball that loses distance to the 120-mph test. So now, any company offering balls for elite players will have higher R&D costs that will get passed down – to me. Not that that isn’t true today, but it would accelerate. How would the OEMs promote the balls for the 99.9 percent when the touring pros don’t use my ball anymore?
I don’t need to protect the courses that were present when the USGA was founded. They’re all private for families of old money. Let the elite players play modern stadium courses. We don’t have Ebbets Field, the Polo Grounds, Forbes Field and Baltimore’s Memorial Stadium in baseball for a reason.
The USGA does not represent me.
Don O’Brien
Madison, Wisconsin
I would like to propose an alternative to the current golf ball discussions. But first I think it is important to point out that today's players are better and stronger athletes, so naturally the ball will fly farther (“Whole new ball game,” March 20 GGP).
How about we specify a limit of 10 clubs? We then specify the loft of each club. The players can choose shafts, grips, lie angle and, of course, manufacturer.
No more 6-, 7-, 8- or 9-degree drivers. 10-degree drivers would limit distance. Players would have to adapt.
Imagine the following:● wedges 58 and 52 degrees
● irons 46, 40, 34, 28 and 22 degrees
● metals 16 and 10 degrees
● putter of choice
Compliance can be handled by the governing bodies just as NASCAR does with the race cars.
An additional benefit is a lighter bag for caddies and their backs.
If the whole industry adopted this 10-club plan, it would reduce the cost of entry for new golfers and encourage more walking with the lighter bags.
Steve Euler
Wilmington, North Carolina
I am sure that I am not alone in saying rolling back the golf ball is stupid (“Whole new ball game,” March 20 GGP).
These golfers are athletes. Just because they now can drive a couple of greens on the tour, people want to punish them. Golf is better than ever, and moments like Bryson DeChambeau driving over the lake on Bay Hill’s par-5 sixth hole at the 2021 Arnold Palmer Invitational are why I tune in to a relatively terrible sport to watch. I would highly doubt that if this happens and we can't play the same balls as the pros that it will attract anyone but rather just drive them away.
Holes-in-one on a par-4 – what a sight that would be, but let's just keep it as boring as possible.
I’m very disappointed with the organizing bodies of golf. They have let themselves down with this decision, and I hope they realize it and backtrack.
Oliver Gee-Howes
Ipswich, England
I’ve listened to/read at least half a dozen evaluations of this new USGA/R&A proposal, and it seems to me after playing the game for 55 years at a decent level (I’m 68, 5.4 index on a much-less-than-championship course) and watching the PGA Tour’s recent Valspar Championship that these golfing bodies – and golf in general – are approaching this perceived problem (if it is one) from the wrong direction (“Decreasing ball distance lengthens golf’s health,” March 20 GGP).
When I lose in my golf group, it’s not because I now “poof” the ball around the course compared to 5, 10, 20 years ago. It’s because I haven’t been practicing enough, I’ve played too much, or the course is too easy, and rarely too long.
For years, as I’ve watched the pros and my young playing partners bomb the courses I play into submission, the solution is always change the ball, change the clubs, or lengthen the course.
If this proposed rule is aimed at the “1 percent,” why not narrow the fairways, lengthen the rough, especially around the greens, and much less manicuring of the bunkers for them? Instead of penalizing the results of hard work to increase speed by minimally reducing the length that one can fly the ball, penalize the inability to shape it properly onto fairways and greens, avoiding penal rough and other hazards.
Make the reward of astounding distances off the tee and playing into greens from unimaginably short distances equal to the penalty of having to try to hit a ball squarely from U.S. Open-style rough everywhere except bunkers that are merely a place to aim for because one hit his bombed drive out of position.
John Bicego
Galesburg, Illinois
The proposal to reduce the characteristics of a golf ball in order to reduce distance is second only to the proposal to tax unrealized gains in its absurdity.
As Ron Green mentioned in his article (“Decreasing ball distance lengthens golf’s health,” March 20 GGP), “this rule isn’t directed at the 99 percent,” so manufacturers are going to be forced to change the ball for the top 1 percent while it will penalize the other 99 percent? What is really negative if pros shoot a 30-under instead of the 20-under they do sometimes?
For years the Open was won with scores over par. Now sometimes it is double digits under par. Has anyone complained? Perhaps the pros with the shorter lengths on driver say it isn't “fair,” but isn't that what competition is about: the best person wins? And if the best person is the guy who has the greater length with driver, then so what? Would you make Michael Jordan play with only one shoe because he was better than everyone else?
If some courses are being overcome by the distance in today's game, then let them change par on some of the holes when they host a professional tournament. Neither that nor someone shooting a 25- or 30-under par costs anyone anything. And it doesn't penalize anyone else. And honestly, who cares?
This idea is absurd.
Woody Bell
Bradenton, Florida
Limiting the distance that a golf ball can fly makes no sense (“Decreasing ball distance lengthens golf’s health,” March 20 GGP).
Long hitters always will have an advantage because after a long drive they use a shorter, more accurate iron to reach the green. This will not change, but changing the golf ball would shift the balance to the shorter-hitting players, giving them a welcome advantage. Is that fair?
Many tournaments are won by shorter-hitting players. And the biggest guys don't dominate distance. Rory McIlroy is a perfect example.
Tiger Woods changed the game and demonstrated that fitness and strength count, and that is a good lesson for any game, especially golf, which long has been considered a game of leisure that anyone can play, which of course is true. The idea that fitness counts is making our young and professional players work out, stay in shape and live a healthy lifestyle. This is so much more important than putting a “governor” in a golf ball.
Trainers shouldn't be viewed as an advantage but as an asset to golfers’ good health and good play. Fitness should be talked about much more as it relates to better golf. This thinking would change the players of the game, not the game itself.
Club selection has changed as the ball flies farther. This should be the only change needed to accommodate longer ball flight. The longer hitter has an advantage; that will never change naturally, nor should it. Club selection is the change, and all players naturally adapt to that. Fitness gives an average-size person the ability to hit a longer ball. This should be golf's message, so thank you, Tiger. Bernhard Langer is a great example.
Leave the golf ball alone. As it flies farther, club selection is the only necessary and appropriate change.
Promote health and fitness to improve your golf game, not changes to the equipment.
Michael Frank
Bonita Springs, Florida
Thank you, Ron Green, for this column (“Decreasing ball distance lengthens golf’s health,” March 20 GGP).
I am resolutely against bifurcation for these reasons:
● I want the tour pros to do things that I cannot. I want to play the same game (and go off back tees if I wish to experience that). I am enthralled because the equipment is basically the same. I will be less keen to play on my normal course and others if this comes in. I would feel patronized.
● The distance argument and golf courses does not stack up. Setup is key. The last three Opens at St. Andrews have not embarrassed the course, and they have not been won by the longest hitters. Putting has been a premium. Penal rough sorts the issue out.
● Setup also can sort out issues such as redundant long-iron shots. Look at the recent Valspar Championship at Innisbrook’s Copperhead Course.
I agree with Justin Thomas that it’s difficult not to think that this development is fueled by the usual and older golf club group who somehow feel challenged that they cannot compete. Spoiler alert: They cannot anyway.
David Bradley
Sheffield, England
Great piece on LIV and the PGA Tour by John Hopkins (“LIV ‘dying a natural death’,” March 13 GGP).
As usual, Hopkins is at the very top of his game.
Gary Larrabee
Wenham, Massachusetts
(Larrabee is an author and golf historian.)
Global Golf Post welcomes reader comment. Write to executive editor Steve Harmon at saharmon83@gmail.com and provide your full name, city, state and country of residence. If your comment is selected for publication, GGP will contact you to verify the authenticity of the email and confirm your identity. We would not publish your email address. We reserve the right to edit for clarity and brevity.