Have you ever had a conversation with someone, and it was very clear that your opinions were divergent and reaching a common place was unlikely? It is usually during those moments that one or both of the impassioned voices will utter the most reliable and disingenuous disclaimer ever voiced, “With all due respect”. It’s these moments where civility and a modicum of respect for the other point of view are on life support. It is likely to be that time now in the industry of golf as the United States Golf Association and the Royal and Ancient have laid down their collective marker regarding their proposed answer to the ever-increasing distance in the game of golf at its highest levels. Where do we all go from here?
I’m not going to share the finite and technical details of the proposed modified local rule proposal right here because you can simply find those details anywhere and this is more about what now than what is it? The time it has taken to get to this place has been excruciating and for the governing bodies it’s been the white whale for decades. Governance is a thankless business and now more than ever, with blue check marks for sale, the opinions of the masses are weightier or at least louder. Change is discomforting and governing a game where scratch players think they can Monday qualify for tour events and grillroom legends think they have a vision for golf course design which would entice Dr. Mackenzie to want to pull up a chair to learn a thing or two about the craft, are plentiful. The game of golf is enjoying high times right now and naturally there were immediate outcries that now was not the time to make significant changes to the game, primarily at the elite level. That is one of too many lazy and half-cocked responses to the local rule proposal. Actually, there is no better time than right now to forge ahead with the changes because of what the future holds, and moreover, making any real change when times are bad generally reeks of desperation. This change for all the outcry is not about tomorrow. First off, it would not come into effect until January of 2026, but this change is as much about 2076 as it is about a couple years from now. The reactions from some would suggest the governing bodies are coming after their wallets and the truth is MANY who are invested in the game in different ways only see it that way. So, for any righteous indignation emoting from companies and individuals about the distance reduction ask yourself what is it that they have to lose? Maybe nothing, but to them they may have a very good thing going and they don’t want it to change. That’s not an unreasonable or unnatural reaction to have but it certainly doesn’t guarantee that they are actually thinking about the welfare of the game. Many simply are not. They are thinking about potential lost market share and for some of the elite players the potential loss of some competitive advantage. The game is inherently selfish, and I promise you many of the outcries I heard upon the release of this proposal are just that, selfish.
Bifurcation is an amazing word. No other 11 letter word sounds like a four-letter word to so many. It is now being weaponized by companies making equipment for all to use as the only thing that separates golf from dizzy bat. I’m sensitive to the cost associated with the research and development of an elite ball that would be required by all the manufacturers. I also recognize the economies of scale that are associated with mass production of balls used by all. However, there are several ball makers who already manufacture balls for a finite subset of the professional game. I also think there is merit to the ongoing premise that golf as a participatory sport makes the argument that we all play the same thing an argument with some merit. However, the rules that elite players abide by and the equipment that is built for them by the same manufacturing companies that consumers purchase from are barely recognizable to each other. Bifurcation has existed in golf for decades and decades and creating a local rule for the long-term betterment of the game for our grandchildren will not tear the game apart.
The challenge right now is to cut through the propaganda on both sides and get to the real issues and real concerns that are and will continue to be masked by players and equipment companies who will profess a commitment to and for the well-being of the game when in reality they care about their stock price and their bonus pools. Neither of which has to be affected at all starting in 2026.
Where do you think the cost of trying to keep up with the changes required in the game have been felt for the past 20 years? Not by the elite players who are making obscene amounts of money, not by the manufacturing companies who have been enjoying record profits but by the consumer who pays dues, initiation fees and green fees at every entry point of the game. Plus, the planned obsolescence when each club company rolls out a new driver that is longer every single year that you can’t live without. The thirst for more yardage, new tees, faster greens, which comes at an extraordinary price tag gets peddled onto the recreational golfer. Restoration and renovations are far outpacing new construction and these projects cost millions and millions per facility. So, this plea to not put the cost exclusively on the ball companies rings hollow. Assessments, initiation fees, monthly dues have all been exponentially increased as distance has continued to go up. Augusta National has deep pockets but they paid in the tens of millions for a strip of land owned by their next-door neighbor just to try to insure the viability of their most famous, amongst all of the famous holes, on their golf course.
As for the leading players in the game acting as if this is blasphemous, their words and their statements have little to no weight. Justin Thomas called the USGA selfish. This on the heels of the PGA Tour’s best players closing off most entry points to their biggest tournaments to ensure the continued gravy train of new cash in the system, produced in large measure from the existence and presence of LIV golf, going to a small pool of players. Any player who advanced the idea last summer in Delaware of turning the designated event series into a grab ass of 40 to 60 players needs to sit this conversation out. They were thinking only about themselves and their newfound leverage as a way to make more at the expense of the overwhelming majority of the tour’s membership and its future members. It’s hard to see beyond what something might mean other than what it means to you right now but that is exactly what this proposal is intended to do. This is not easy, and it will require a fair amount of forward and unselfish thinking. Many of the voices who can and are heard every day are paid messengers. For all the concern about not being able to play what the players play because they have so much influence over the recreational golfer, why have the equipment companies turned away from paying top players as much or as many to paying “influencers”… many of whom couldn’t break wind in a baked bean eating contest yet they have value now because their audiences are dedicated and have exhibited brand loyalty. I’m not sure of their feelings about a distance reduction but when and if I hear similar talking points that equipment manufacturers released after the announcement being regurgitated by paid messengers then those words are weaker than water.
Finally, this initiative was going to have to be taken on by some front person and in the case of the USGA its Mike Whan. Mike has a varied background which included a chapter in a marketing capacity. He will have to sell this to not only the invested golf companies and organizations who run elite golf events, but he will have to be accessible to the people who talk the game, many of whom will want a pound of flesh. Some people were cut out for certain jobs and Mike Whan is the right person to advance this because he’s pragmatic and a good communicator. The best communicators are great listeners and Whan is that, plus he is wired for performance without it feeling like it’s just for show. He will be equipped with all the data points, but his greatest strength is his willingness to not only see the other side but recognize the merits of the opposition to the proposal. I worry about the sustainability of not only the most cherished courses in the world but also the never-ending necessity to keep up. I want to see the examination of the best players be more thorough and that is also being compromised. Speed is a skill, and its refinement is jaw dropping and I do not want to see that severely diminished, and I do not think that will be the case as all early evidence is that the longest may experience an even greater reward than before. Those things are to be determined. Let’s all try to see beyond who gets affected most right now and I understand that is not normal in the human condition. Let’s also acknowledge the real concerns and challenges both sides of this argument have and listen to them without resorting to name calling. And if you are one to scream that amateurs with 15 handicaps shouldn’t be governing the game, please lose the lazy line or just sit this discussion out because these “amateurs” are devoting their lives to the game and study it every waking moment, from rules, to equipment testing standards to course and agronomic conditions. These are serious people making serious decisions. I support the distance reduction, but I want this conversation to be constructive and I will remember, like I hope you can, that reasonable minds can differ.