Bryan, thanks for the reply, and the considered suggestions. I appreciate the post, and the other thoughtful contributions in the thread.
The Rollback Alliance exists to promote informed, meaningful discussion that may precipitate regulatory reform, enacted by those who formulate the Rules of Golf. It is these bodies who will ultimately determine the degree of distance correction desired by revised laws pertaining to club and balls. They may also consider the element of ‘correctiveness’ possessed by balls and clubs – as the ‘de-skilling’ of the game courtesy of technology is obviously a factor equally worthy of attention.
I’m not certain the Rollback Alliance will be promoting a precise position regarding desired distance correction. We wish to provide a united voice urging reform. Contemporary voices, along with those who have said the same throughout the last century.
I think a return to the yardages seen in the amateur and pro games prior to the year 2000 is popular among the group. Our pilots and supporters are however of varying minds. Some favor bifurcation. Some prefer a universal rollback. Some favor ball and club reform, while others are happy to have club regulations left alone at this time.
We are however united in our belief that burgeoning club and ball technology is having a deleterious effect upon the game, and that action is required now. This is the message we wish to send the governors of the game. These bodies need to be emboldened and reminded that they are guardians of the game. They are the rightful governors of golf, and they need to govern. Perhaps Rollback Alliance will help prod them to do just this.
If the Alliance gains critical mass, it will signal to the R&A and the USGA that regulatory reform is urgent. It may also ease the process of implementation if more golfers are better informed. Some are clearly not so educated currently.
Bryan, your suggestion on weight and size is of merit, yet I also feel it may be a moot point. The manufacturers will no doubt have performed in-depth research and testing on balls made to a variety of potential future regulations. These will relate to a host of design elements apart from weight and size. I know I’d do that if I were in the manufacturer’s position. They will have readied for discussions and prepared new spec options they find palatable, should the USGA and R&A collaboratively approach the task of formulating new regulations.
Jim, how do you get the Tours on-side? I hope I answered it to your satisfaction in post #104. How do manufacturers win? Personally, I suspect it includes the following - a collaborative approach with manufacturers, very generous sunset clauses on existing ball specs, a degree of compromise on distance restriction, minimal rule changes on driver specs, and a universal rollback (no bifurcation) allowing Titleist et al to market the ball pros use to all golfers around the world. They may also go to market with new drivers – something they love doing! Their profit risk is mitigated by this approach in my personal and humble opinion.
Who wins with a rollback? Importantly, golf wins with revised regulations. There are safety, environmental, financial, and time gains to be had, among others. The scale of the game cannot continue to grow as it has. People need to realise that fundamental truth. The game will suffer in a number of ways, not least of which reputationally. The inherent strategy of the game will devolve, golf will be less skill dependant, and the cost of play will continue to rise. Innumerable courses of significance are already lost to the professional game – which is terrible. The re-establishment of a robust authoritative governing body would also be a welcome win should the USGA and R&A step up and do their job. The list of wins goes on. Rollback won’t change the world but it would deliver considerable wins for golf.