[Matt_Cohn]

I'm developing an opinion that golf needs to go the way of many other sports and have different sets of rules regarding equipment for high-level play versus equipment for recreational play.

My thought process is that advancing technology poses no threat to the game when used by 99% of players; equipment companies who make money from that 99% could continue business pretty much as usual; and the game would be better for the 1% playing by tournament rules.

How many of you support having two sets of rules? How many of you want golf to maintain its tradition of one set of rules for everyone?

I'd particularly like to hear more educated opinions on why bifurcation would or would not be practical.

[Bill Shamleffer]

Matt,

My recent thoughts on this matter are very much in line with your opinion.   I do think the professionals should be restricted in the equipment they are allowed to use.  I really do not see this as two different sets of rules, in that any golfer would be allowed to use the same equipment as used by the professionals.  Rather, I see this as allowing the amateurs more access to game improvement equipment so that the casual golfer can still enjoy the game.

My original objection to allowing access to game improving equipment is the idea of what is the challenge if the equipment is doing the work.  But, I now instead see the use of the game improvement clubs and balls as opportunities for one who has less time to devote to golf, or for one who takes up golf later in life, to enjoy the game more and enjoy some of the strategies offered by the course.

My biggest question is at what level should the restriction go.  Should all professionals, even those competing in their local PGA Monday events be restricted to the same equipment as the PGA Tour pros.  Should the U.S. Amateur and other USGA events be restricted.

My opinion would be to restrict the clubs used down to the state and city championships.  However, this issue is still very malleable to me.  I think this would encourage one with pride in his success at golf to want to reach the level where he too can play well without the game improvement equipment.  I would not be surprised if "the equipment used by the pros" would become the equipment used by the majority of regular golfers (i.e. those playing at least weekly in-season).

The other issue is if there be just two sets of standards, or multiple standards.  That is, will some equipment allowed at the local level not be allowed at the USGA level and so forth.  In my opinion, this would be best if there are just two segments.  First, allow all equipment that continues to conform to the USGA rules and regulations to be considered as "legal equipment".  Then, have some of that equipment not allowed for "championship competition".  This would include all professional tours, USGA championships and all state and local championships.  I do acknowledge that once there are separate rules for championship golf and non-championship golf, this does open the Pandora’s box, and could lead to local associations then having still different restrictions.  Nevertheless, I prefer that risk to the current status.

The metal driver I use is one of the original TaylorMades.  My other bag has a Power Built wood driver.  I was with a friend in Dick's Sporting Goods this weekend showing him the current size of drivers (as he too has not updated his clubs), and he took one look at those monstrous drivers and simply said, "That's cheating".  I could not agree more, and I do not see how any professional with pride can enjoy playing with those drivers.  If they saw the drivers Bobby and Lanny Wadkins used, they would be amazed.

[Adam Clayman]

Bifurcation will lead to tri, which will begat quad, father of quint. etc. etc etc.

The OGA experiment raises these questions and opens the door for the National Hickory Stick Championships with Graphite putter without inserts tour.

[Bill Shamleffer]

Adam,

Why can't bifurcation work, if it is USGA/R&A regulated?  The USGA allows a one-ball local rule.  This works fine.  If the USGA and R&A can create equipment limitations with the PGA Tour, PGA and LPGA in agreement that they will follow, then there will only be bifurcation.  There will be equipment that conforms with USGA rules and regulations, then within that will be a sub-group of "championship equipment standards".  This subgroup would be applicable to all professional tournaments and all USGA, R&A, national, state, and local championships.

This biggest problem could be a suit from equipment manufacturers charging USGA, R&A, PGA, PGA Tour, and LPGA with antitrust.  The argument being that to sell the equipment with the latest technological advances, they need the publicity of the PGA Tour professional using this technology.  If the USGA with the PGA Tour, etc., consorts to limit the use of this equipment, this will restrain the equipment manufactures.  I wonder if bifurcation creates more of an antitrust case for the manufactures, then for the USGA and R&A to just restrain equipment across the board under one set of equipment rules and regulations.  (All lawyers out there, this is a very simplistic antitrust problem I am proposing.  Please feel free to fully criticize this issue.)

[Adam Clayman]

Bill-
 It's just my opinion that opening the door to more than one set of rules will forever alter the sport by opening a Pandora's Box of different tours, clubs, balls and rules.

As it stands today, I can stand on any first tee on the planet and be assured that I know the rules of the game i'm playing.

Altering those, bifurcating those, will be appeasing the myopic view many have when it comes to this universal sport and should be resisted.

[Bill Shamleffer]

Adam,

If the USGA and R&A only changed the rules, by creating equipment standards that only limit the allowable equipment for championship/tournament golf, then you could stand on any tee and still know you are playing by the same rules as before.

The only change would be that if you enter a tournament, you would first need to review the tournament rules, including those applying to equipment.  Tournaments currently may apply a single ball rule, which does not apply to casual play, tournaments may have rules per cart use and caddy use, and they may have rules per GPS systems and other devices to assist with measurement.  Another example is that last weeks Women's Am. had a local rule for "environmental protected areas".  If the ball was in this area, it could NOT e played.  I am unsure if the player was allowed a free-drop, as if this was ground under repair, or if there was a penalty stroke applied, as if it was a hazard.  Nevertheless, the point being all tournament competitors always have to make themselves familiar with all local and tournament rules.

[Matt_Cohn]

I guess there is a question about whether, say, the 11-12 girls division in the Junior World tournament should have to follow the same set of tournament rules as the PGA Tour.

Or for that matter, anyone other than the PGA Tour itself.

[JohnV]

Bill,

The ESAs at Pumpkin Ridge are all water hazards or lateral water hazards.  One stroke for a ball in them.  But, the ESA rules apply for all golfers at all times at Pumpkin Ridge, not just during USGA events.

The problem with two sets of rules for equipment is that the player who is at the edge of these rules has two choices.  1) Get two sets of equipment or 2) Play with the shorter equipment against players who don't have to use it when playing in an event without the restrictions.

For example, if the USGA said you had to use the shorter equipment for all it championships (which it might), about 200 to 300 players in Western PA would be faced with that choice including a number of juniors (and not just for the US Junior).

Courses would need to be rated for both types of equipment so that people could establish valid handicaps.  This isn't a big issue, but then people have to remember to post under the right rating leading to more errors.

[Doug Siebert]

I'm not in favor of bifurcation, as I think it should be possible to alter the rules to fix the equipment problem without unduly hurting poorer players (unless someone wants to argue that putting things back to the state they were even as recently as 1999 would be unduly hurting them)

But if its done it HAS to be written into the rules of golf, not set up as a framework to allow for different rules, because there's no way all the various tournaments and organizations will agree on what needs to be done, and each will do things differently or attack the problem from a different angle.

[JohnV]

Doug, how do you write it into the rules in a way that the Committee in charge of a competition won't have to say which equipment is allowed or not?

The only way I see to do it is that the USGA/R&A would define two different specifications for balls or clubs or whatever.  Then the Committee determines if the tournament is to be restricted to the shorter specification or not.  Both specifications would be in the Appendicies in the Rules book and there would be lists of balls (similar to the Conforming Ball List) or clubs (similar to the Conforming Driver List) for each specification.  I would assume that all such equipment that was on the short list would be on the long list, but not the other way around.

[Jay Flemma]

I'm in favor of bifurcation.  You're exactly right...only 1% of the game need 7700 yards...when you turn pro, like a pro baseballer, no more metal...back to wood..uncorked please...

[Doug Siebert]

John,

Yes, exactly as you describe.

We wouldn't need 7700 yards, but I think we'd have to rate at least the 'tips' -- back to 7000 yards being really long -- for both balls (or sets of equipment, if it bifurcates more than just the ball)  By doing that you reduce the need or incentive for course owners to ask the architect to design a course that tests the pros with 7700 yards.  Instead you put it in the public's mind that the real players play the shorter equipment if they are good/long enough so you don't need more than 7000 yards, and hopefully the really long tees that already exist will eventually close from lack of use.

I just don't see it as reasonable or desireable that only the pros play the shorter ball.  Top amateurs, college golfers, probably any "serious" competition should probably do so.  And a lot of others would probably do it.  I think I probably would most of the time, though I'd probably get out a Pro V1x once in a while just to remember how far I used to hit it

But like I said earlier, I still think bifurcation is the less desireable outcome.  But certainly more desireable than the status quo.

[Bill Shamleffer]

John,

I realized that the ESAs covered all golfers at Pumpkin Ridge.  However, that is a designation I have never encountered at any course I have every played.  Although, I would not be surprised to hear it may become more common, it is still an example of how rules are different, and one cannot assume the rules are the same at every course and every event.

Per having multiple sets of equipment, I do not think this would really be an issue for most golfers competing in local or higher championships.  How many on GCA have multiple sets of clubs.  Also, if one tried to compete today using an old set of Hogan Apex's, Power Built woods, and a Bulls Eye putter, that person may be feel as if they just gave the competition a couple strokes a side.  (I am not claiming this to be a fact, just the impression one may apply to using this older equipment.)  Most who are regular championship competitors are already upgrading their equipment every few years, so having to adjust one's equipment during the next few years to comply with new tournament standards would not appear to be much of a hindrance.

Finally, I never proposed they equipment must be "shorter".  My only problem with new advances in equipment is that it is too forgiving and minimizes shot making.  Good wood drivers and blade irons can still be very long.

[Jon Wiggett]

Matt,

the pro tours do have their own set of additional rules which are used in most pro events. The one ball rule for instance was introduced for pros back in about 1986 but not for amateurs and nobody had a problem about it at the time

So why do the professional governing bodies not introduce rules to combat the excessive length of the top players? Up until now there has been no real pressure on them to do so. Most people are so fixated with the USGA and R&A who set the rules for the amatuer game that no one seems to have noticed that the problem lies within the professional game. If the PGA Tour and the professional bodies are not put under pressure to sort their problem out then it is not surprising that they are ignoring it.
Who knows, if a shortened ball was introduced to the tour maybe amatuers would play them now and again just to be able to play the courses like the pros do.

[Adam Clayman]

Finally, I never proposed they equipment must be "shorter".  My only problem with new advances in equipment is that it is too forgiving and minimizes shot making.  Good wood drivers and blade irons can still be very long.

Bill, This seems to be a common flaw in peoples logic when discussing this issue. They seem to blur the lines between the pros and the regular folk.

Do any of them play cavity backs? As I understand it, they do not, and its because there's no distance control.

[Jon Wiggett]

Do any of them play cavity backs? As I understand it, they do not, and its because there's no distance control.

Adam,

although many of the pros still play blade clubs as they feel they have a better feel and control with them there are still many players using cavity backs.

[Matt_Cohn]

At the Buick Open, approximately:

25 guys with forged blades
80 guys with forged cavity backs (MP 60's, X Tour's, etc.)
50 guys with cast irons

[Doug Siebert]

Matt,

the pro tours do have their own set of additional rules which are used in most pro events. The one ball rule for instance was introduced for pros back in about 1986 but not for amateurs and nobody had a problem about it at the time

The funny thing now is that this rule is pretty much obsolete.  The main reason they did it is that pros were using low spin Rock Flites on long holes into the wind to avoid some of the distance loss from ballooning balatas.  Now they are using Pro V1s which are low spin off the driver and long irons so even if they could use a different ball on certain holes, most wouldn't.

My cynical side suggests that the rule change was made (and will be maintained) at least partly due to pressure from the equipment makers who didn't like the guys with the Titleist hats hitting other balls on certain holes.  Think if Tiger had used a different ball on the 16th at Augusta a couple years ago and when the ball dropped instead of seeing the closeup of the Nike Swoosh you saw that weird little Pinnacle logo instead?

[Doug Siebert]

At the Buick Open, approximately:

25 guys with forged blades
80 guys with forged cavity backs (MP 60's, X Tour's, etc.)
50 guys with cast irons

And I'll bet of the 25 guys playing blades, 24 of them are over 40 or will be in the next couple years, and the other one is Tiger!

[JohnV]

The funny thing now is that this rule is pretty much obsolete.

I have proposed to our championship committee that we do away with the one-ball rule next year for the exact reason you stated.  With the new balls it isn't needed and it could just cause us to have to penalize a player for making a mistake.

Of course, on tour it is needed or Nike would be making special balls for Tiger to use in any situation.  He'd probably have 3 or 4 different kinds of balls, all with the Nike logo on them.

[ForkaB]

John

Nike aren't that clever (or weren't when I worked with them intensively in the early 80's).  If they were, they'd make 9 golfballs for Tiger, with the same logos but with all different specs, with numbers 1-9.  Tiger's such a genius he could figure out instantly that a 7 was low spin/hi-roll model and a 2 was medium moment of intertia/moderate climb rate or whatever.

Bifurcatre me baby!

[Wayne_Kozun]

I have proposed to our championship committee that we do away with the one-ball rule next year for the exact reason you stated.  With the new balls it isn't needed and it could just cause us to have to penalize a player for making a mistake.

Of course, on tour it is needed or Nike would be making special balls for Tiger to use in any situation.  He'd probably have 3 or 4 different kinds of balls, all with the Nike logo on them.

How does this rule work - do the balls all have to be labelled the same?  My understanding is that the Pro V1 ball has changed a fiar bit since it was first introduced a few years ago, but the name has remained the same.  If I was playing one hole with a Pro V1 from 2002 and one hole with a Pro V1 from 2006 would I be violating the one-ball rule?

[John_Cullum]

The funny thing now is that this rule is pretty much obsolete.

I have proposed to our championship committee that we do away with the one-ball rule next year for the exact reason you stated.  With the new balls it isn't needed and it could just cause us to have to penalize a player for making a mistake.

Of course, on tour it is needed or Nike would be making special balls for Tiger to use in any situation.  He'd probably have 3 or 4 different kinds of balls, all with the Nike logo on them.

A friend of mine said he was speaking with a PGA Tour official at a rules workshop this year, and he said the PGA Tour was dropping the one ball rule. I have my doubt.

[John_Cullum]

I have proposed to our championship committee that we do away with the one-ball rule next year for the exact reason you stated.  With the new balls it isn't needed and it could just cause us to have to penalize a player for making a mistake.

Of course, on tour it is needed or Nike would be making special balls for Tiger to use in any situation.  He'd probably have 3 or 4 different kinds of balls, all with the Nike logo on them.

How does this rule work - do the balls all have to be labelled the same?  My understanding is that the Pro V1 ball has changed a fiar bit since it was first introduced a few years ago, but the name has remained the same.  If I was playing one hole with a Pro V1 from 2002 and one hole with a Pro V1 from 2006 would I be violating the one-ball rule?

Yes. You will note the side markings have some slight differences. All of them are on the conforming list.

[JohnV]

Wayne,

The one ball rule means that all the balls you play in a round must be from the same listing in the conforming ball list.  Each version of the Pro V1 (or any other ball) will have slightly different side markings and have a different entry in the list.

For example, the following Pro V1s are listed right now.
< * Pro V1 392 * >
< * Pro V1-392 * >
< Pro V1-392 >
< Pro V1 + 332 >

and then there are the Pro V1x balls.

All would be different balls under the one ball rule.

Color can also matter, if you remember a few years ago, Nike came out with a black version of its ball.  They made sure that the USGA put the black and white versions on the same line of the list so that Tiger could play both in one round at the TPC Scottsdale.

The conforming ball list is currently 25 pages long with 30-40 entries on each page and is updated monthly.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()