The USGA and the R&A are at it again.

In March, the two governing bodies of world golf, announced a proposed Model Local Rule that, if adopted in 3 years’ time, would restrict the distance a ball could travel to 317 yards when struck with 127 mph of club head speed.  Both organizations believe this would result in approximately a 15-yard distance reduction by the most elite players.

According to the New York Times, “Dozens of balls that are currently used could become illegal on circuits such as the PGA Tour and the DP World Tour, as the European Tour is now marketed, if they ultimately embrace the proposed change.”

As with all proposed rule changes, a “discussion period” allows for the industry to study the proposal and give feedback to the governing bodies before any such change is enacted.

As a member of the industry, here is my feedback.

What are you doing???

The universally recognized (though self-appointed) guardians of the game are once again putting their personal desires for the sport above the interests of not only those who work in the game, but more importantly, the majority of those who play the game.  “Protecting the integrity” can be translated to mean “protecting the courses we like.”

In fairness, the proposal is intended to be used only in “elite competitions.”  Loosely defined, that means professional and high-level amateur tournaments (think the US Amateur or the Augusta Women’s Amateur) will have the option to require the use of the restricted ball.

Their logic is that, given the rate of distance gains over the last few decades, many of the historic venues will no longer be relevant in 20 years.  They further argue that even non-iconic courses around the world would need to expand in order to accommodate future golfers.

The most common solution currently is to lengthen courses by purchasing more land.  Unless you are the members of Augusta National, the acquisition of additional real estate is not only too costly, but in many cases not environmentally or socially responsible, thus rendering it impossible for most facilities. 

Many of the game’s greats have also weighed in on the topic.  Jack Nicklaus has long advocated that the golf ball be rolled back.  The preferred reasoning is that the ball is the “easiest” solution to a complex problem.

I agree that the game will fundamentally change as elite players become bigger, stronger and better athletically.  The influence of technology on both equipment manufacturing and instruction will make the tools we use better and swings more anatomically efficient.

I also agree that the opportunity to roll back club design has long passed, but there are other contributing factors that, in my opinion, can and should be looked at before we change a fundamental aspect of the game: that being that amateurs and professionals play by the same rules.

Perhaps the easiest and most cost effective would be to look at the agronomy of the courses themselves.  Rather than lengthening courses to accommodate the distance of the future, how about growing the grass?

Make the rough longer, make the fairways not only narrower but also longer.  The fairways on the world’s tours are firmer and faster that most greens the average golfer plays on the weekend.  Why do they need fairways to stimp at 10?

We’ve all seen what play is like when the fairways are soft and wet.  The course plays longer.  While I am not advocating fairways be watered to the point that balls are constantly picking up mud, I am saying longer grass will keep the ball from rolling as far.  It will also reduce the predictability of the lie, thus making skill a more interictal part of the game at the highest levels.

I know the argument that almost every sport uses different balls at different levels.  Even at the elite level, the ball the WNBA uses is smaller than the one used by the NBA.  Tennis has used a “slower” or “faster” ball for different tournaments based on the playing services.  Of course, all of us that follow the MLB know they not only change the ball from year to year but sometimes, allegedly, within a season.

I am also fully aware that golf itself used to have different ball sizes depending on if the event was overseen by the USGA or the R&A.  The reason the two bodies decided on one set of ball dimensions was to not have the game played under bi-furcated rules.

Now it’s acceptable?

Much of this just doesn’t feel right.  I get that the game is changing…it always will.  I understand that many people don’t want to see places like The Country Club or Marion become obsolete but other great courses will inevitably take their place.  The reality is, there are many factors playing a role in the distance increase.  The ball always seems to be the target.  Heck even Bobby Jones argued against the “modern” ball.

The truth is this is not about the ball or even distance but keeping certain courses relevant.  If you want to preserve historic courses, maybe they simply need to be relegated to history, otherwise, work within the confines of the property they already have.

Don’t change the ball…find another way.