[Mike_Clayton]

Last time there was a rollback it went: (an effective rollback with the switch from 1.62 - 1.68 - which was about 25 yards for scratch players and pros)
The Open 1974
Europe and Australian Tour (not sure about Japan and Asia) 1978
'Rest of World' amateurs 1983.

Mike:


I thought the R &A's original change was for The Open and The Amateur?


That seemed to me the perfect solution, because the best amateur players slowly but surely pressured others to change with them, from the Amateur to other big events to regional events to everywhere.  And it was pretty easy, politically!


You are right that it's the American equipment companies who are affected this time, and they are using the players they sponsor to kick and scream about the evils of bifurcation.


Sean is also right that if EVERYONE has to roll back at once, the rollback will be smaller and have less impact than if they just got the elite players to do it.  But it doesn't appear that the politics are possible for that.  It's just like everything else in America, the status quo of big business must be preserved at all costs.

Tom,


I'm not sure when The Amateur changed - but I'd be surprised if it was the same year as The Open. The Australian Amateur probably changed a year or two before the universal change for club players.
I won the Australian Amateur in 1978 - and was the only player in the field using a big ball. I figured if I was going to be a pro I'd have to learn to use it and was prepared to give up the distance advantage.

[Mike_Clayton]

"But now it's affecting American golfers - and manufacturers -  it's different."

Seriously American golfers? Bridgestone and Srixon and Japanese companies aren't they?

I'm an American. I don't care if they do a rollback. I think it's a little late. What I don't want want is bifurcation. Like Pat said it should be for all levels of golf. One of the greatest things about golf is that we can play the same courses the pro's play majors on. Using a ball that goes longer would ruin the experience IMO.

My point was very few Australians - or likely British/European/Asians -  complained about losing distance when they were forced to switch to the big ball.
American golfers seen way more obsessed about it.
And Titleist seems way more upset about it than any other manufacturer.

[Mike_Clayton]

What does “we can directly relate to a shot or a course that a PGA Tour player plays” actually mean?

It means that if you hit a shot to 2" from 164, you can say that you hit that shot better than 1000 PGA Tour players would have hit that shot in that moment. If you hit a homer in your beer league, you weren't facing Gerrit Cole, and you don't have that immediate and authentic connection. Of course there are differences in atmosphere, etc. but you're playing the same game by the same rules.

I don't know what's so hard to grasp here — sure the equipment manufacturers push this "same game, connection" stuff too much because it suits their bottom lines — but golfers appreciate and enjoy the connection too. It exists slightly in other sports, but not to the level of golf. (Individual sports with the same rules probablyhave this connection: I don't think the rules of the 100m are different at the Olympic and high school level, so if you run a really fast 100m race I imagine you can feel that connection too a bit.)

And right on cue there's Mike Clayton with a "back in my day" take. 

The other issue no one talks about is how much easier the game is to play with modern drivers and fairway woods, hybrid long irons and the ball going 50-70 yards further (since 1980) over two shots.It's given literally 1000s of kids a very similar skill set - bomb it and hit short irons into greens designed for mid and long irons - and they all think they are good enough to be pros.

There are a lot more people playing golf, with better instruction, and starting much earlier, with expanded competitions. So of course there are more kids hitting it farther: there are not only more kids playing golf, they're getting better information, having reasons to work harder at it, and more.

As for 70 yards… if you look at the Distance Insights report… amateurs have gotten longer, but not 70 yards over two shots longer. I'll trust data over anecdotes almost all of the time.

Sean is also right that if EVERYONE has to roll back at once, the rollback will be smaller and have less impact than if they just got the elite players to do it.  But it doesn't appear that the politics are possible for that.  It's just like everything else in America, the status quo of big business must be preserved at all costs.

While I'm not going to deny big business isn't against bifurcation for the obvious reasons, bifurcation stinks at the player level as well. It harms everyone just below whatever the cutoff is for "you must play the rolled back ball."

When the golf community switched from the 1:62” international ball to the US spec 1:68” not many noticed (or maybe even knew). I can’t believe that most golfers are good enough ball strikers nor savvy enough to notice this time.

You don't think a guy is going to notice that his 160-yard 7-iron now goes less than 150 when he hits it decent? Of course chunks will go just as far, but jeez: most golfers aren't chunking so many shots they won't notice that their good hits go 10% (or whatever) shorter. That they're hitting three clubs more into the 388-yard hole than they used to (225 / 160 becomes 200 / 185, with the 185 requiring one or two more clubs than 185 used to mean).


Like I said, if they're going to roll it back, I only had four real positions:

• I don't think they need to base any change on 0.1% of the world's golfers.
• That said, sustainability/resource usage was the best angle to argue it.
• If they do roll it back, I wanted them to know exactly what the results would be. I didn't want a massive disruption to the game only to have the PGA Tour players and equipment manufacturers work around it in six months and get all the distance back. And I didn't want something like a lighter ball pushed through without considering how it would affect putting, for example.
• I didn't want bifurcation. Roll it back for everyone if you're gonna do it.

Eric - Do I really have to point out the 70 yards - give or take - over two shots refers to pros only?
Of course 10 handicappers don't hit a drive and a 3 wood 70 yards further than they used to.
And you're - right there are way more players on the tour and it's fringes with better technique and more information. It's also unarguable the game is way easier to play - which at the top level makes it harder to seperate talent levels.
The harder the exam the more the smarter kids seperate themselves.

[Sean_A]

Sean is spot on as usual here.

In many ways the simple reality is the game already is bifurcated in nearly every way when it comes to Pros and everyone else. Make the pros use a new ball and the sheep will follow suit

P.S.  The only time I ever come close to relating to the Pros is making a 5 foot putt under pressure with a bet with my buddies.

Give the “sheep” their choice and I think you would be surprised how many would pick the ball that goes farther.

The #1 crux of the matter is the elite pros. Rolling the ball back 5% is a waste of momentum as it will not achieve any stated goals. Now if the mandatory rollback is 10%+ fine. Let’s go for it.


I think people forget that in the US a minority of golfers have handicaps. What the USGA says are the rules is meaningless for more than a significant percentage of golfers. Within this percentage are many of the golfers who hit it dangerously far with relatively little control.


IMO bifurcation has more chance to roll the ball back further for more people…if the rollbackers data is accurate. If the rollbackers data is false, it will be a disaster if the rollback is forced on rank and file golfers. I would like the opportunity to test the rollback ball because I have doubts.


If bifurcation is implemented, of course the goal would be to de-bifurcate as soon as it makes sense….which I believe would happen.


Ciao

[Ben Sims]

IMO bifurcation has more chance to roll the ball back further for more people…if the rollbackers data is accurate. If the rollbackers data is false, it will be a disaster if the rollback is forced on rank and file golfers. I would like the opportunity to test the rollback ball because I have doubts.


If bifurcation is implemented, of course the goal would be to de-bifurcate as soon as it makes sense….which I believe would happen.

Sean,


Multiple people, myself included, have argued what you said above. Issue is, the pushback was so vociferous that the governing bodies upped the ante as Tom stated earlier. I don’t think the many folks saw that coming. It made sense to me but what do I know.


But more to your point, the rollbackers data is pretty shoddy and has been for some time. For goodness sakes, they banned anchoring while simultaneously saying it didn’t really help. The points I made a few posts ago are true. The USGA has a major problem when Mike Davis says that the game is being threatened at every level and yet, in their own distance insight report, 95% of golfers average less than 225yds off the tee.


I don’t know the answer to any of this. I know what I want and what I think is good for golf courses and golf architecture long term. But as to how that squares with governing body data, well, that’s harder to square.

[Sean_A]

IMO bifurcation has more chance to roll the ball back further for more people…if the rollbackers data is accurate. If the rollbackers data is false, it will be a disaster if the rollback is forced on rank and file golfers. I would like the opportunity to test the rollback ball because I have doubts.


If bifurcation is implemented, of course the goal would be to de-bifurcate as soon as it makes sense….which I believe would happen.

Sean,


Multiple people, myself included, have argued what you said above. Issue is, the pushback was so vociferous that the governing bodies upped the ante as Tom stated earlier. I don’t think the many folks saw that coming. It made sense to me but what do I know.


But more to your point, the rollbackers data is pretty shoddy and has been for some time. For goodness sakes, they banned anchoring while simultaneously saying it didn’t really help. The points I made a few posts ago are true. The USGA has a major problem when Mike Davis says that the game is being threatened at every level and yet, in their own distance insight report, 95% of golfers average less than 225yds off the tee.


I don’t know the answer to any of this. I know what I want and what I think is good for golf courses and golf architecture long term. But as to how that squares with governing body data, well, that’s harder to square.

There was always going to be pushback from the tours. That was made clear long ago. I don’t see how mandatory rollback mitigates the pushback? The tours can still say no thanks. Golfers can still say no thanks. To me it makes no sense to rollback across the board unless it’s a mega rollback…which will result in mega howling. What I don’t want is all the rollback currency spent on a pathetic rollback of 5%. If successful, that will be it. That will be the big compromise with little to nothing achieved.

Ciao

[Ben Sims]

IMO bifurcation has more chance to roll the ball back further for more people…if the rollbackers data is accurate. If the rollbackers data is false, it will be a disaster if the rollback is forced on rank and file golfers. I would like the opportunity to test the rollback ball because I have doubts.


If bifurcation is implemented, of course the goal would be to de-bifurcate as soon as it makes sense….which I believe would happen.

Sean,


Multiple people, myself included, have argued what you said above. Issue is, the pushback was so vociferous that the governing bodies upped the ante as Tom stated earlier. I don’t think the many folks saw that coming. It made sense to me but what do I know.


But more to your point, the rollbackers data is pretty shoddy and has been for some time. For goodness sakes, they banned anchoring while simultaneously saying it didn’t really help. The points I made a few posts ago are true. The USGA has a major problem when Mike Davis says that the game is being threatened at every level and yet, in their own distance insight report, 95% of golfers average less than 225yds off the tee.


I don’t know the answer to any of this. I know what I want and what I think is good for golf courses and golf architecture long term. But as to how that squares with governing body data, well, that’s harder to square.

There was always going to be pushback from the tours. That was made clear long ago. I don’t see how mandatory rollback mitigates the pushback? The tours can still say no thanks. Golfers can still say no thanks. To me it makes no sense to rollback across the board unless it’s a mega rollback…which will result in mega howling. What I don’t want is all the rollback currency spent on a pathetic rollback of 5%. If successful, that will be it. That will be the big compromise with little to nothing achieved.

Ciao

Sean,


When it all came out months ago, one of the biggest arguments against rollback was that people didn’t want to see the game bifurcated. It might’ve been a strawman that rollback opponents set up or might not have been. Either way, non-bifurcated rollback alleviates at least that one tenant of pushback. 

[MCirba]

I'm 65 years old and hit the ball further than I did in my 20s.   I've gone back to courses I haven't played since my youth and the holes play considerably shorter...considerably.


There is no way that is good for the game long term, or for our courses.   My ego loves it, admittedly.

[Thomas Dai]

My point was very few Australians - or likely British/European/Asians -  complained about losing distance when they were forced to switch to the big ball.
American golfers seen way more obsessed about it.
And Titleist seems way more upset about it than any other manufacturer.

Seems like a pretty good reason to avoid buying Titleist balls!
The game is more important than the manufacturers.
Atb

[Stewart Abramson]

I'm 65 years old and hit the ball further than I did in my 20s.   I've gone back to courses I haven't played since my youth and the holes play considerably shorter...considerably.


There is no way that is good for the game long term, or for our courses.   My ego loves it, admittedly.

I think you're not typical. I'm part of a group of 150 golfers aged 55-85 and in my experience playing with most of the members, maybe 1 in 50 is longer than they used to be. Very few of the group hit their tee shots 200 yards. Almost all play from 6000 yards or less with most choosing tees closer to 5,000 yards. Notwithstanding having been fitted by a great club fitter for an expensive driver/ shaft I'm still  almost 35 yards shorter off the tee than I was 25 years ago. I don't think anyone I play with would care about ball bifurcation. We already know our games are nothing like the pros. Most of the group are already playing different balls than the pros. People who play Pinnacle, Top Flite, Noodles or whatever they find in the woods could not care less if they play a different ball than the pros. They're much more concerned about not getting  any shorter off the tee and reaching greens in regulation without having to move up to even shorter tees that don't feel like a real golf course.

[Matt Schoolfield]

I've been mulling over an idea that nobody seems to be talking about. A bifurcation like F1 and NASCAR. Two leagues. One uses all the technology they want (like F1), and play on the newest and "best" courses that are 8000 yards+, and another league that uses a stock set of clubs (everyone has effectively the same equipment, like NASCAR), and they play the classic clubs at classic distances, or even shorter courses.

A standard, stock set of clubs would do wonders for creating a flat set of set of criteria for manufactures. Manufactures could even be see this as an ability to get most players buying two complete sets instead of one! It would also go leaps and bounds for:

1. Making golf cheaper for those who see it as expensive.

2. Creating a better framework for NASCAR-league professionals playing classic courses.

3. Connecting your weekend player to the NASCAR-league pros, by literally playing the exact same equipment.

4. Creating an inter-generational thread so that distances and dispersion across time is accurate.

Finally, when it comes to the ball, one of the biggest knocks on golf I see that come from myself and other long-term environmentally minded folks, is that golf is currently a form of organized littering. Having a stock ball that is made from (at least) some type of inert or mostly degradable material, instead of the current polybutadiene, that can leach heavy metals into the water table over time (shout out to Dixon golf for using salts instead), having one stock ball that was made of, say, rubber, would be really fantastic on the perceptions about golf's impact.

Just my two cents of bifurcation, though i realize it's a pipe dream. I agree that golf technology is interesting and I'd like to follow it. I also agree that it makes many courses no longer feasible venues, especially one's we'd like to see as relevant. I think just having two leagues is a way to make everyone happy, and we can see from F1 and NASCAR that this dual model can be very successful.

[Rob Marshall]

"But now it's affecting American golfers - and manufacturers -  it's different."

Seriously American golfers? Bridgestone and Srixon and Japanese companies aren't they?

I'm an American. I don't care if they do a rollback. I think it's a little late. What I don't want want is bifurcation. Like Pat said it should be for all levels of golf. One of the greatest things about golf is that we can play the same courses the pro's play majors on. Using a ball that goes longer would ruin the experience IMO.

My point was very few Australians - or likely British/European/Asians -  complained about losing distance when they were forced to switch to the big ball.
American golfers seen way more obsessed about it.
And Titleist seems way more upset about it than any other manufacturer.

I would love to see some examples showing Titleist is more upset than other manufacturers or that American golfers seem more obsessed about it. Haven't heard one of my golf buddies say anything about it nor are they obsessed about it. It is what it is. I just want there to be one set of specs for all golfers. Seems like generalizations. 


Did American's complain when they were using a larger ball?

[Tim Martin]

I'm 65 years old and hit the ball further than I did in my 20s.   I've gone back to courses I haven't played since my youth and the holes play considerably shorter...considerably.


There is no way that is good for the game long term, or for our courses.   My ego loves it, admittedly.

This seems to be a common refrain for players in their 40’s and 50’s but I don’t hear it often when comparing distance length between ages 25 and 65. You’re doing something right!

[Tim Martin]

"But now it's affecting American golfers - and manufacturers -  it's different."

Seriously American golfers? Bridgestone and Srixon and Japanese companies aren't they?

I'm an American. I don't care if they do a rollback. I think it's a little late. What I don't want want is bifurcation. Like Pat said it should be for all levels of golf. One of the greatest things about golf is that we can play the same courses the pro's play majors on. Using a ball that goes longer would ruin the experience IMO.

My point was very few Australians - or likely British/European/Asians -  complained about losing distance when they were forced to switch to the big ball.
American golfers seen way more obsessed about it.
And Titleist seems way more upset about it than any other manufacturer.

I would love to see some examples showing Titleist is more upset than other manufacturers or that American golfers seem more obsessed about it. Haven't heard one of my golf buddies say anything about it nor are they obsessed about it. It is what it is. I just want there to be one set of specs for all golfers. Seems like generalizations. 


Did American's complain when they were using a larger ball?

You won’t hear much about it until and if it takes effect from the club player.

[Mike_Clayton]

Given this is an architecture forum one thing no one has mentioned yet is a basic principle of architecture is building a green relative to, and suited, to the shot to the green.
What the equipment - ball, driver, mowing machines, trackman - has done is see players hitting wedges and short irons into greens designed for middle and long irons.
And on some par 5s, 3 woods into greens designed for wedges - which is way more interesting than wedges into big greens.
And some short par 4s are way more interesting - and dangerous -  now they are reachable.
But not the 18th on The Old Course - which is now a long par 3:)

[John Kavanaugh]

I’m old enough to have been a scratch golfer when we had an option of playing the small ball. I did not see the distance advantage over a 100 compression Titleist pro traj, or I would have used it.


In 1978 there were 4 par fours that I could drive that I can no more. Still a member. On the other hand I still remember the first time I played with a 14 that could drive the same greens. Moved my money game to a longer more penal course.

[Mike_Clayton]

"But now it's affecting American golfers - and manufacturers -  it's different."

Seriously American golfers? Bridgestone and Srixon and Japanese companies aren't they?

I'm an American. I don't care if they do a rollback. I think it's a little late. What I don't want want is bifurcation. Like Pat said it should be for all levels of golf. One of the greatest things about golf is that we can play the same courses the pro's play majors on. Using a ball that goes longer would ruin the experience IMO.

My point was very few Australians - or likely British/European/Asians -  complained about losing distance when they were forced to switch to the big ball.
American golfers seen way more obsessed about it.
And Titleist seems way more upset about it than any other manufacturer.

I would love to see some examples showing Titleist is more upset than other manufacturers or that American golfers seem more obsessed about it. Haven't heard one of my golf buddies say anything about it nor are they obsessed about it. It is what it is. I just want there to be one set of specs for all golfers. Seems like generalizations. 


Did American's complain when they were using a larger ball?

Google 'Golfer - the 100 most influential people in golf.'


Number 12. David Maher. Acushnet President and CEO


"In the last 3 years, he has overseen a period of sustained growth and emerged as one of the biggest critics of the rollback proposals. His voice carries significant weight."


It's hardly news Acushnet have been against any rollback for many years.

[Craig Sweet]

I'm with Stewart. All the modern equipment and I'm not nearly as long as I was when I was 40...


I now play at 6000-6300 yards.  If the ball is rolled back I'll be hitting from the Red tees (ladies).

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I want to be very clear, I was told and later shown that what I wrote above is true.

I'm not sure I understand: did you think "Bingo" meant I disagreed somehow?

Regarding the ball sales. If it's a rollback for all players (pros and ams) then manufacturers can still sell the same balls the pros play to amateurs, right?

If this is some attempt to point out that some pros occasionally play golf balls that aren't generally available for sale, I am not biting. Most do, and the differences in those few balls are very, very small and, more importantly, not because of a different set of rules. They are still the same class/type of golf ball.

In many ways the simple reality is the game already is bifurcated in nearly every way

Not by rule. That's not remotely true.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Eric - Do I really have to point out the 70 yards - give or take - over two shots refers to pros only?

No, but it's also not just the golf ball that's responsible for that.

The harder the exam the more the smarter kids seperate themselves.

No disagreement there. If we still had 1995 equipment Tiger might have 22 majors and 110 PGA Tour wins. But I don't really care about the PGA Tour and don't think we should legislate the entire game because of 0.1% of PGA Tour players.

The tours can still say no thanks. Golfers can still say no thanks.

By and large, "illegal" equipment doesn't sell well. Sales of the "Bandit" golf ball might not out-pace sales of exploding golf balls, despite their availability.

Number 12. David Maher. Acushnet President and CEO

That didn't answer his question (by showing that they're "more upset" than TaylorMade or Callaway or Bridgestone). And, as the market leader, they have the most to lose.

[Craig Sweet]

Here's 29 pages of regulations for equipment used in FIS events....


https://assets.fis-ski.com/image/upload/v1561994644/fis-prod/assets/Specifications_for_Alpine_Competition_Equipment_July_2019.pdf

This is NOT the equipment weekend skiers, ski instructors, hot shot college racers use.  This spells out what the Shiffrins of the world use.

Golf should do the same.

[Rob Marshall]

"But now it's affecting American golfers - and manufacturers -  it's different."

Seriously American golfers? Bridgestone and Srixon and Japanese companies aren't they?

I'm an American. I don't care if they do a rollback. I think it's a little late. What I don't want want is bifurcation. Like Pat said it should be for all levels of golf. One of the greatest things about golf is that we can play the same courses the pro's play majors on. Using a ball that goes longer would ruin the experience IMO.

My point was very few Australians - or likely British/European/Asians -  complained about losing distance when they were forced to switch to the big ball.
American golfers seen way more obsessed about it.
And Titleist seems way more upset about it than any other manufacturer.

I would love to see some examples showing Titleist is more upset than other manufacturers or that American golfers seem more obsessed about it. Haven't heard one of my golf buddies say anything about it nor are they obsessed about it. It is what it is. I just want there to be one set of specs for all golfers. Seems like generalizations. 


Did American's complain when they were using a larger ball?

Google 'Golfer - the 100 most influential people in golf.'


Number 12. David Maher. Acushnet President and CEO


"In the last 3 years, he has overseen a period of sustained growth and emerged as one of the biggest critics of the rollback proposals. His voice carries significant weight."


It's hardly news Acushnet have been against any rollback for many years.

"Playing by a unified set of rules is an essential part of the game’s allure, contributes to its global understanding and appeal, and eliminates the inconsistency and instability that would come from multiple sets of equipment standards," said David Maher, Acushnet CEO. "Unification is a powerfully positive force in the game, and we believe that equipment bifurcation would be detrimental to golf’s long-term well-being."
Bridgestone Golf's response was similarly aligned, but a little more moderate. "We are concerned that the proposed rule changes could confuse and dampen the enthusiasm of millions of new participants to our game," it reads. "We are pleased that the proposed changes do not appear to be aimed at recreational players."

I'm surprised you didn't mention Bridgestone. You are quoted in the article I pulled this from.
What evidence do you have that American golfers are more against the rollback that the rest of the golfing world?

Did American's complain when they were playing a bigger ball?

[JohnVDB]

"But now it's affecting American golfers - and manufacturers -  it's different."

Seriously American golfers? Bridgestone and Srixon and Japanese companies aren't they?

I'm an American. I don't care if they do a rollback. I think it's a little late. What I don't want want is bifurcation. Like Pat said it should be for all levels of golf. One of the greatest things about golf is that we can play the same courses the pro's play majors on. Using a ball that goes longer would ruin the experience IMO.

My point was very few Australians - or likely British/European/Asians -  complained about losing distance when they were forced to switch to the big ball.
American golfers seen way more obsessed about it.
And Titleist seems way more upset about it than any other manufacturer.

I would love to see some examples showing Titleist is more upset than other manufacturers or that American golfers seem more obsessed about it. Haven't heard one of my golf buddies say anything about it nor are they obsessed about it. It is what it is. I just want there to be one set of specs for all golfers. Seems like generalizations. 


Did American's complain when they were using a larger ball?

Google 'Golfer - the 100 most influential people in golf.'


Number 12. David Maher. Acushnet President and CEO


"In the last 3 years, he has overseen a period of sustained growth and emerged as one of the biggest critics of the rollback proposals. His voice carries significant weight."


It's hardly news Acushnet have been against any rollback for many years.

"Playing by a unified set of rules is an essential part of the game’s allure, contributes to its global understanding and appeal, and eliminates the inconsistency and instability that would come from multiple sets of equipment standards," said David Maher, Acushnet CEO. "Unification is a powerfully positive force in the game, and we believe that equipment bifurcation would be detrimental to golf’s long-term well-being."
Bridgestone Golf's response was similarly aligned, but a little more moderate. "We are concerned that the proposed rule changes could confuse and dampen the enthusiasm of millions of new participants to our game," it reads. "We are pleased that the proposed changes do not appear to be aimed at recreational players."

I'm surprised you didn't mention Bridgestone. You are quoted in the article I pulled this from.
What evidence do you have that American golfers are more against the rollback that the rest of the golfing world?

Did American's complain when they were playing a bigger ball?

I can’t find it, but if you go back to when the original proposal was made to roll the ball back for all, you’ll find Titleist argued that it would be wrong to roll the ball back for the amateur golfer.


Make up your mind.

[Craig Sweet]

Why would you want to force the amateur to use the same equipment as the professional if they are not competing in a sanctioned event with pros?  Can you imagine if skiers had to use the same equipment as a professional for their weekend at Stowe?  Painful!

[Tom_Doak]

Did Americans complain when they were playing a bigger ball?

One main reason the R & A changed over to the larger golf ball in the 1970s was the complaints from U.S. players that they didn't like to come over for The Open and have to change to the 1.62-in ball for that one week.  I believe that Jack Nicklaus was particularly pointed in his comments about it.  And at that point the R & A were still grinding to get Americans to come and play in The Open . . . the prize money wasn't enough of a draw.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()