Will Zalatoris, Tom Hoge and others received $67,500 in “winnings” even though they didn't win or tie a match in the recent WGC Dell Technologies Match Play (“Burns ends Match Play era in style,” March 27 GGP). Zalatoris didn't even start his third match. Maverick McNealy and others received about $75,000 for one tie. It's basically appearance money for the top 64 players on the PGA Tour and not unlike what's paid to 48th place in LIV tournaments.
Couple this with the limited-field “designated events” and you have one common denominator between the PGA Tour and LIV: The already greedy have-a-lots have made it so that they have a lot more.
In the end, there's not much difference between the two tours, just how each individual gets his gold.
Charlie Jurgonis
Fairfax, Virginia
Once again, the major ruling bodies of golf, the USGA and the R&A, are about to make a big mistake in attempting to roll back the distance that golf balls go for “elite” players (“Whole new ball game,” March 20 GGP).
On January 1, 2016, the ruling bodies outlawed anchoring the long putter, taking away the method of putting used by many amateurs, plus a number of “elite” players. In so doing, the governing bodies dampened the pleasure of many amateur players, some of whom were accommodating back issues with the long putter, and hindered the ability of even a few “elite” players in making a living playing the game.
Now the USGA and the R&A want to make another decision that’s bad for the game, amateur and professional alike: rolling back ball distance. Let’s not take golf backward.
Some players, amateur or professional, always will be longer than others in golf. So what? That is just the difference in athletes.
Should we put lead boots on some running backs because they are faster in the 40-yard dash than others in the NFL? How about the same lead boots on some NBA players just because of their jumping ability versus others in the league?
Bifurcation, my derrière! We amateurs all want to play by the rules and with the same equipment that the “elites” play, period. The USGA and R&A should have learned that lesson when they banned anchoring the long putter. If they change the ball for the “elites,” that’s the ball amateurs will want to play.
As has been proved in the past at many “elite” tournament venues, narrow the fairways, grow the rough and speed up the greens, as that usually brings the winning score up higher (see Bay Hill this year), but let the bombers bomb, be they “elites” or be they us lowly hackers.
Hopefully the USGA and the R&A will reconsider their troubling proposal to roll back ball distance for “elites,” as I think the world of golf and those of us who play the game would be better for it.
Bill Boutwell
Jacksonville, Florida
Justin Thomas said it’s cool that the recreational golfer gets to play the same equipment that he does (“Selling a short ball could be a long shot,” March 20 GGP). I agree, but it is more than that: It has become a tradition of the game, and as Arnold Palmer once said, “If you mess with tradition, you mess with golf” (“Whole new ball game,” March 20 GGP).
The idea that the best players in the world should be made to play worse equipment than recreational golfers is frankly bizarre. What's more, it is no use comparing golf with other sports – for example, Formula 1. Motorsport has relatively few recreational participants, whereas millions play golf every day.
My wife and I recently watched the exciting WGC Dell Match Play. What we got was golf as it was meant to be, with our heroes head to head going for their shots. Sky Sports commentator Ewen Murray, in answer to the question, “How many shots would a club scratch golfer need from a tour professional to play on level terms?” once said 8 to 10. So, if we see them driving par-4 holes, and getting up par-5s with a drive and a short iron, that's how good these guys are, and we shouldn't be surprised at scores of 62 or 63.
If it were up to me, I would leave things exactly as they are, but if there is to be a new ball, then we should all play it. At 88, as I am now, if I were to lose a few yards off my Sunday-best 150-yard drives, so what? I'd soon get used to it. Also, if the USGA and the R&A are concerned about land and water resources, they should encourage the 50,000 or so clubs where recreational golf is played around the world to shorten their courses to accommodate a new shorter ball. On a world scale, this would do little to conserve either, but it would save very much more than making sure that the relatively few courses on which top tournaments are played don't get any longer.
Gerald Rooke
West Sussex, England
Like most of the reactions to this idea that are in the negative, I too concur that this is a bad one (“Whole new ball game,” March 20 GGP).
I will turn 75 this summer. I still play around par, and even better from about 6,700 yards now. My distance off the tee is unusually long for my age. When I was 25, I hit the driver about as long as anyone. It didn’t help me as a tour player in 1975 when I made $126 for the year. Remember Monday qualifying? You could go weeks without playing in a tournament, let alone making a cut.
Agronomy has changed the game. When I came to Florida 1966 to play college golf, there were fairways and greens that had the same grass on them, and it was nothing like the exquisite carpets we see today. When I watch TV and see a golf course where the pros are playing and the ball bounding down the fairway running 20, 30 even 50 yards, I wish I were out there hitting the ball on those fairways. I would still exceed 300 yards, even at this age.
Growing up in Philadelphia and watching the U.S. Open in person at Merion, and watching as pros tried to find their ball in the rough was almost comical.
The USGA and the R&A need to help improve the rules for players and work on agronomy.
In my 70 years of playing this wonderful game, it is in the best place it has ever been, and it’s only getting more exciting to watch. And that’s what everyone needs to realize: It has become a wonderful spectator sport.
Ted Mandes
Stuart, Florida
It’s a sensible idea (“Whole new ball game,” March 20 GGP). I want to watch skill and not just power.
If action on the ball isn’t taken, we will lose all of the old historic golf courses. It’s a welcome change that’s long overdue.
Pete Buttrum
Lowestoft, England
The definition of an “elite” golfer leaves lots of questions (“Decreasing ball distance lengthens golf’s health,” March 20 GGP). Is that anyone who is a plus-handicap index? Plus-handicap based on tees he is playing? Is it based on swing speed? Will local clubs adopt it for events? Club championships?
Lots of questions and few answers.
What about lowering the COR (coefficient of restitution) for all pro tours? Why not allow amateur players whose swing speeds are below 90 or 80 mph to have a higher COR so they can play the course and not play the forward tee? After all, they have a handicap when they play.
It reminds me of the elimination of the anchored putting stroke for all golfers instead of just those on the pro tours. The USGA and R&A took the 8-handicap who is old and with shaking hands and said no more anchoring. Now that 8 is a 13. Why? Does that matter? He plays with a handicap.
Wayne Morris
Fort Myers, Florida
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.