[David_Tepper]

Overwhelmingly!

https://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2020/10/1/european-golf-course-architects-overwhelmingly-support-action-on-distance

[Tommy Williamsen]

I am pleased that the clubs to which I belong have not lengthened the courses. Bifurcation seems the best solution but how and for what tournaments is a big question. Does bifurcation mean that State Opens, the US Am and other championships make players change equipment?

[Tom_Doak]

Bifurcation seems the best solution but how and for what tournaments is a big question. Does bifurcation mean that State Opens, the US Am and other championships make players change equipment?

The governing bodies only have to make the rule for the U.S. Amateur and the Amateur Championship.  If they do, slowly but surely, the elite players will make the events at the next tier switch, too, so they don't have to play with two different balls, and the process will continue back down the food chain over time.

[Sean_A]

Bifurcation seems the best solution but how and for what tournaments is a big question. Does bifurcation mean that State Opens, the US Am and other championships make players change equipment?

The governing bodies only have to make the rule for the U.S. Amateur and the Amateur Championship.  If they do, slowly but surely, the elite players will make the events at the next tier switch, too, so they don't have to play with two different balls, and the process will continue back down the food chain over time.

I can't see The USGA unilaterally doing this. The R&A would need get on board with R&A events, which I suspect they are willing to discuss. Plus, has the Euro Tour ever stated they wouldn't contemplate bifurcation/rollback? So far as I recall the US Tour was the tour which kicked a bit about tech.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

I can't see The USGA unilaterally doing this. The R&A would need get on board with R&A events, which I suspect they are willing to discuss. Plus, has the Euro Tour ever stated they wouldn't contemplate bifurcation/rollback? So far as I recall the US Tour was the tour which kicked a bit about tech.

The USGA won't do anything unilaterally, ever.  The R&A would have to be on board, and I suspect they are more willing than the USGA is.


I don't know if the European Tour has said anything, but let's face it, the PGA TOUR is the 300-pound gorilla in the room.  It's their players you are trying to control for, and if they resist, the idea is going nowhere fast.  The USGA and the R&A would have to risk making their hallowed championships "irrelevant" by insisting on the rule even if the Tours didn't go along for the other 50 weeks of the year, and they are generally not ones to take risks. 


[It doesn't help that they are all much more chummy now from attending hundreds of meetings over the years, and there is a bit of a revolving door between the various governing bodies and the manufacturers, too.  They are that much less likely to put their good buddy in an awkward position.  There are all the same problems that exist in our governments generally.]

[Sean_A]

I am not as worried about the US Tour as some.  With both ruling bodies on board, I have to think the Masters jumps with the ruling bodies.  If the US Tour doesn't want to partake, its a perfect time for a world tour to be formed especially if other tours are game.  I think there is a brewing world wide resentment of the power the US Tour sways and who knows, this could be the match to the fuel.  Besides, is it such a big deal if three majors and various tours play with different balls?  I don't see it as a big deal.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Sean:


You are probably right that it would be crucial for the governing bodies to get Augusta National on their side, and while I have always thought the idea of a Masters ball was pure fantasy, I think it's reasonable that they would side with the USGA and R & A over the TOUR.


There may be growing resentment toward the TOUR from the rest of the world, but ultimately it's about where the players want to play, and the TOUR is resented for exactly the reason the players gravitate that way, because the money is so much bigger there.  That might change if there was a true "world tour", but I think the odds of that are not high . . . not many of today's players really enjoy schlepping across time zones and cultures the way Gary Player did.  And indeed, Gary Player enjoyed it in part because he knew his peers did not, and that was an advantage to him.

[Sean_A]

I agree, a proper world tour or elite league is not likely, but I do think there will be some sort of shift in pro golf. I also take on board that a large percentage of the best players are not American and don't necessarily want to live in the US.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Nice to see such support. Hope it becomes more widespread.
I get the impression though that the elite players are sniggering behind their cash filled hands at the distance debate. The elephant in the room. And while many of their fellow players ain’t likely to rock any boats given their tour pension funds and the like the elite, who have essentially loads of £$ anyway, are probably more attracted by how many Green Jackets, Claret Jugs etc they‘ll have won when their careers are over.
Would seem a opportunity for The Masters, R&A, USGA to exert some kind of elite leverage ... our ball or no play and no play, no Green Jackets, no Clarets Jugs, no famous legacy plus the ego boost, kudos and £$ bonus’s and clout that goes with them. Time to encourage a few big cats to run amongst the pigeons?
Needs some cajones from some folks though particularly given, as Tom mentions above, the chumminess and revolving door between the rules authorities and the manufacturers etc and all the vested interests and politic power games involved behind the scenes.
Maybe it’ll be pressure from outside the golf business that ultimately ‘persuades’ or forces the powers that be into action? It would be rather ironic if it were the anti-golf or environmental etc lobbies who were the ones who ultimately ‘persuaded’ the powers that be into action.
Atb

[Kalen Braley]

I'm still having a hard time envisioning many Tour players not attending 3 of the 4 majors, assuming the USGA synchs up with the R&A and The Masters follows suit.

With so much prestige, history, aura, etc. and I presume continued large pay days, its hard to see players like Rory, Spieth, or DJ not wanting to add to their legacies. And even if some big names skipped the events, the ones who haven't yet won a major would be extra incentivized to play.

[Niall C]

"Hi I'm Bryson...or is it Dustin....no wait, my names Brooks. I'm here to tell you about this wonderful new driver I'm playing. It doesn't go as far as your old driver but not to worry because if you manage to qualify for one of the majors then you'll have to use it. And at $499 how can you say no ?!"


Hmm, I'm struggling to see how bifurcation is going to work in practice. Can't imagine the manufacturers will be too happy having their show ponies playing "inferior" equipment which they aren't going to be able to sell. I'm also struggling to imagine fans being that interested, and consequently sponsors being that interest. Once they lose the interest then the tournament ceases to be a major.


Niall

[Tom_Doak]

Hmm, I'm struggling to see how bifurcation is going to work in practice. Can't imagine the manufacturers will be too happy having their show ponies playing "inferior" equipment which they aren't going to be able to sell. I'm also struggling to imagine fans being that interested, and consequently sponsors being that interest. Once they lose the interest then the tournament ceases to be a major.

In theory, fans of auto racing would all be opposed to slower cars, but they didn't care one bit.


It's the manufacturers who stand in the way. It's all about the Benjamins.  The players are only going to boycott The Masters if the equipment companies pay them to skip it, and the fans might not take kindly to that.

[Kalen Braley]

And all the baseball fans who immediately stopped watching when they stopped juicing the baseballs...

Or the NFL fans when teams could no longer manage game balls...

P.S.  Bryson could still mash a non-tournament ball with impunity on the commercials, as they would still have all thier shiny clubs and fancy shirts....

[Pete_Pittock]

I'd bet that they will adopt a different ball standard. For professional events it would go into effect immediately.  For golf in general it would go into effect with a one or two year delay, depending on what ball manufacturers need as lead time. A local rule would be made allowing golf organizations and individual clubs to decide when to follow. The USGA would might just restrict to US Amateur or go across the board.  State organizations would either delay or just put it into effect for their elite events.


Anyways, kudos to the European GCAs. Tough to be first.

[Mike_Clayton]

Bifurcation seems the best solution but how and for what tournaments is a big question. Does bifurcation mean that State Opens, the US Am and other championships make players change equipment?

The governing bodies only have to make the rule for the U.S. Amateur and the Amateur Championship.  If they do, slowly but surely, the elite players will make the events at the next tier switch, too, so they don't have to play with two different balls, and the process will continue back down the food chain over time.

Which is pretty much what happened in the switch from 1.62 to 1.68. The Open (Lytham, best known for Gary Player's Ping 1 iron - an almost essential links course club with the 1.68" ball) in 1974 went first.
I'm not sure when the European Tour changed but it was probably around 1976.
The Australian Tour was 1978.
I was playing the big ball by then in amateur tournaments and the better players quickly switched knowing if they wanted to play professional golf there was no point playing the 1.62 ball.
The big ball was mandated for all Australian club players in 1984.


Amazingly I never heard of one player who gave up golf because they lost distance - and despite the big ball going up to 25 yards shorter, the professional game in Australia was never healthier than the years of Norman. Not a single person though it'd have been better with him hitting a 1.62' ball 310 yards - as opposed to 285.

[Tom_Doak]

Anyways, kudos to the European GCAs. Tough to be first.

Indeed.


And I'm only surprised that the Australian architects didn't beat them to it.  When I was trying to round up architects to "say something" about the changing of The Old Course, the Society of Australian Architects were in immediately, and the EIGCA apologized that they wanted to say something but really couldn't, because Martin Hawtree was a senior fellow of their organization.


Meanwhile, the Americans took a few months and then had five different architects present a variety of different views. 

[Sean_A]

I'm still having a hard time envisioning many Tour players not attending 3 of the 4 majors, assuming the USGA synchs up with the R&A and The Masters follows suit.

With so much prestige, history, aura, etc. and I presume continued large pay days, its hard to see players like Rory, Spieth, or DJ not wanting to add to their legacies. And even if some big names skipped the events, the ones who haven't yet won a major would be extra incentivized to play.

I don't think anybody is suggesting this. To me it's the opposite. The ruling bodies and the Masters have more power than given credit for. I also think golfers have more power. Unlike Niall, I think many ams would play the elite equipment even if the rules didn't require it. The US Tour doesn't hold all the aces by a long shot.

Ciao

[jeffwarne]

Bifurcation seems the best solution but how and for what tournaments is a big question. Does bifurcation mean that State Opens, the US Am and other championships make players change equipment?

The governing bodies only have to make the rule for the U.S. Amateur and the Amateur Championship.  If they do, slowly but surely, the elite players will make the events at the next tier switch, too, so they don't have to play with two different balls, and the process will continue back down the food chain over time.

Which is pretty much what happened in the switch from 1.62 to 1.68. The Open (Lytham, best known for Gary Player's Ping 1 iron - an almost essential links course club with the 1.68" ball) in 1974 went first.
I'm not sure when the European Tour changed but it was probably around 1976.
The Australian Tour was 1978.
I was playing the big ball by then in amateur tournaments and the better players quickly switched knowing if they wanted to play professional golf there was no point playing the 1.62 ball.
The big ball was mandated for all Australian club players in 1984.


Amazingly I never heard of one player who gave up golf because they lost distance - and despite the big ball going up to 25 yards shorter, the professional game in Australia was never healthier than the years of Norman. Not a single person though it'd have been better with him hitting a 1.62' ball 310 yards - as opposed to 285.

This.
The ONLY difference was, the R&A / Australia felt they were playing catch up to the US Tour, who was playing the big ball.
Sadly, there's no playing organization leading the change.
As Sean says, I think many would play the bifurcated equipment, to match what "the pros were doing", just as many played blades they had little chance to hit well for years.
But they'd at least like to have a reason to do it-such as the elite doing it and then their low handicap buddies wanting to be like the elites.

[Mike_Clayton]

Anyways, kudos to the European GCAs. Tough to be first.

Indeed.


And I'm only surprised that the Australian architects didn't beat them to it.  When I was trying to round up architects to "say something" about the changing of The Old Course, the Society of Australian Architects were in immediately, and the EIGCA apologized that they wanted to say something but really couldn't, because Martin Hawtree was a senior fellow of their organization.


Meanwhile, the Americans took a few months and then had five different architects present a variety of different views. 

Tom,


I think I'm right in saying The Australian architects (SAGCA) put out a statement a few years ago.
I know I wrote one for them.

[Mike_Clayton]

Bifurcation seems the best solution but how and for what tournaments is a big question. Does bifurcation mean that State Opens, the US Am and other championships make players change equipment?

The governing bodies only have to make the rule for the U.S. Amateur and the Amateur Championship.  If they do, slowly but surely, the elite players will make the events at the next tier switch, too, so they don't have to play with two different balls, and the process will continue back down the food chain over time.

Which is pretty much what happened in the switch from 1.62 to 1.68. The Open (Lytham, best known for Gary Player's Ping 1 iron - an almost essential links course club with the 1.68" ball) in 1974 went first.
I'm not sure when the European Tour changed but it was probably around 1976.
The Australian Tour was 1978.
I was playing the big ball by then in amateur tournaments and the better players quickly switched knowing if they wanted to play professional golf there was no point playing the 1.62 ball.
The big ball was mandated for all Australian club players in 1984.


Amazingly I never heard of one player who gave up golf because they lost distance - and despite the big ball going up to 25 yards shorter, the professional game in Australia was never healthier than the years of Norman. Not a single person though it'd have been better with him hitting a 1.62' ball 310 yards - as opposed to 285.

This.
The ONLY difference was, the R&A / Australia felt they were playing catch up to the US Tour, who was playing the big ball.
Sadly, there's no playing organization leading the change.
As Sean says, I think many would play the bifurcated equipment, to match what "the pros were doing", just as many played blades they had little chance to hit well for years.
But they'd at least like to have a reason to do it-such as the elite doing it and then their low handicap buddies wanting to be like the elites.

Jeff,


I don't think The Australian Tour felt like it was playing 'catch up' to the US Tour. No one ever though catching up was remotely possible.
There was a group of younger players willing to stand up to Peter Thomson (President of the PGA) who was vehemently opposed to changing the ball. 
"Why should we blindly follow the Americans?" was his argument.
It was the wrong argument but a worthy sentiment - at a time when our golf course architecture was 'blindly' following American trends.
 David Graham,Bruce Devlin,Jack Newton,Bob Shearer and Graham Marsh all understood the only way Australia would ever produce players capable of competing on the American Tour was to play the same ball.
Having said that, they had all grown up playing the small ball and had become world-class players.
They were probably tired of either switching when they came home -or giving up 25 yards to the rest of the field.
Tony Jacklin and Peter Oosterhuis probably had the same influence in Europe - and within a few short years they had the amazing generation of Ballesteros.

[Thomas Dai]

Isn't there a Magna ball that's legal although a little larger than standard? Anyone played it?
atb

[Duncan Cheslett]

My good friend Ken Moodie has been doing a lot of work on this behind the scenes and I'm delighted that these results have finally been published.


The bulk of architects' work these days is on old courses which by and large have no potential for being lengthened. It makes perfect sense then, that architects' interests and the interests of the game as a whole coincide absolutely.


The elephant in the room is not the distances pros are hitting the ball. It is the distances unskilled young fit amateurs are hitting the ball in unpredictable directions. Reining in the ball will happen when it is recognised universally that golf has a major health and safety issue, both on the course and in respect of neighbouring properties and roads etc. This is the area which should be highlighted by proponents of a restricted ball.


Golf architects around the world have a massive role to play in this. Hats off to the EIGCA.

[Kalen Braley]

I'm still having a hard time envisioning many Tour players not attending 3 of the 4 majors, assuming the USGA synchs up with the R&A and The Masters follows suit.

With so much prestige, history, aura, etc. and I presume continued large pay days, its hard to see players like Rory, Spieth, or DJ not wanting to add to their legacies. And even if some big names skipped the events, the ones who haven't yet won a major would be extra incentivized to play.

I don't think anybody is suggesting this. To me it's the opposite. The ruling bodies and the Masters have more power than given credit for. I also think golfers have more power. Unlike Niall, I think many ams would play the elite equipment even if the rules didn't require it. The US Tour doesn't hold all the aces by a long shot.

Ciao

Implementing a tourney ball at these 3 majors would be the mechanism to start the rollback process.  Whether the PGA Tour would follow suit is another thing, but there is risk as they do run most of the other prominent events. And if the WGC and its tours got on board for their 4 events, the PGA and Euro Tour would be the lone holdouts, although PGA Tour players would be a lot more apt to skip these.

As I see it, the solution to the distance issue is relatively simple, a flight limited tournament ball.  Its the implementation of getting everyone on board that is more complex/nuanced.

P.S  What the ams decide to do is for all intents and purpose irrelevant.  They have what 2-3 events each year that get a lot of publicity?

[Thomas Dai]

The elephant in the room is not the distances pros are hitting the ball. It is the distances unskilled young fit amateurs are hitting the ball in unpredictable directions. Reining in the ball will happen when it is recognised universally that golf has a major health and safety issue, both on the course and in respect of neighbouring properties and roads etc. This is the area which should be highlighted by proponents of a restricted ball.

Beautifully phrased Duncan and spot-on.
Atb

[Forrest Richardson]

"Meanwhile, the Americans took a few months and then had five different architects present a variety of different views." [Tom D]

Not sure where that was, but mathematics will dictate that the ASGCA ("Americans") will obviously have a wider range of opinion as there are significantly more members than the EIGCA or the SAGCA...plus there are other, non member designers practicing in the Americas.

We (ASGCA) have issued statements, and generally agree that a deep dive into the history of distance concerns is/was a good place to start. Our members assisted by going way back to uncover plans to compare center-line lengths, range plans and yardages proposed on courses.

While many have stated that it is "simple" to understand, this is not at all the case. There are a multitude of issues, aspects and viewpoints to the issue. Safety is one, and that is major part of the USGA/R&A's focus and background research.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()