Justin Thomas was among the governing bodies’ most vocal critics of the recoil of a golf ball.
Getty Images
On a foggy June afternoon in Los Angeles, USGA CEO Mike Whan took to the podium and braced himself for impact. It was Wednesday at US Open at Los Angeles Country Cluband the annual state of Whan State had turned into a minefield.
By the time Whan arrived at the lectern, the number of third-rail subjects in golf was approaching double digits. There were battles with an elitist reception course; the state commissioner of the PGA Tour Jay Monahan authorized leave; and of course, the professional golf landscape, which had been bombarded just days earlier by a truce between the Tour and LIV Golf – to name just a few.
One by one, Whan deflected mortar shells from the golf course like mosquitoes on a windshield – stopping poignantly to share his support for Monahan, taking a reasoned but noncontroversial stance on the merger and praising of the host location of the week. But just when it looked like he was going to escape unscathed, a question pierced his armor.
The journalist wanted to know if, following the recent announcement of the decline of golf, Whan had reconsidered his position on the involvement of players in the decisions of the governing bodies. In the weeks leading up to the Open, Whan and his R&A counterpart Martin Slumbers had been pilloried for this throwback, a “local rule template» adopted by the USGA and the R&A which would stem golf’s recent enthusiasm for distances by introducing a shorter distance golf ball for professional events. Golf equipment stakeholders launched an immediate and aggressive lobbying campaign against the changes, and many of their Tour ambassadors rallied to their defense, calling the rule change short-sighted and detrimental to meritocracy ideals long-standing in the sport.
The reporter’s question wasn’t really about going back, but after weeks of open criticism, Whan hadn’t heard it that way.
“Oh, you mean the distance subject as opposed to go back topic?” He replied in a playful, chastising voice. “I just think it’s funny that they call it that.”
He was joking, but his message was serious: the governing bodies are not going anywhere. This The subject, more than all the others, was a third element that deserved to be addressed.
Now, almost six months later, it looks like Whan and Slumbers are about to double down. In an excellent report from Golf summary’John HugganSlumbers addressed the lingering questions surrounding the distance issue and hinted that golf may be about to receive another distance development from the USGA and R&A.
According to Slumbers, it is possible that governing bodies will move away from MLR as it was originally presented, given that much of the golf world has since criticized the bifurcation of its involvement.
“The game was unhappy with the model local rule,” Slumbers told Huggan. “Some thought it would create a split game at the elite level. It was a very strong reaction against that. The PGA Tour has been very public about it. So does the PGA of America. Many players have spoken out. And our job is to listen.
But will the governing bodies stop wanting to reign in golf’s distance gains in recent years? No, said Slumbers, no chance.
“Our responsibility is to the long-term future of the game. Alongside the USGA, the R&A is the steward of the game,” he said. “We are responsible for our times, something that has lasted for hundreds of years and will last for hundreds of years. So we listen.
Slumbers and Wahn repeatedly emphasized that the distance debate has more to do with durability than equipment. The evolution of distances in recent years has forced golf courses to expand significantly to meet the needs of the professional game. Consider Augusta National, which spent $30 million on a small parcel of land just to expand its 13th hole to accommodate the needs of professional play; then consider the fact that almost every other golf course lacks similar resources to combat distance growth. Similar macro-level changes could affect golf’s efforts to build a more environmentally friendly future, not to mention the disappearance of many of the sport’s most famous courses from tournament play. In short, it doesn’t take long to understand that golf’s current earnings are at odds with its sites.
Of course, solving this problem will require upending the golf equipment industry, which invests millions each year to design equipment that will maximize player performance, and will have to upend a multi-million dollar production line in order to adapt to any change. Many manufacturers have pointed out that rolling back a golf ball only to the professional level would cost an exorbitant amount for a very limited return on investment.
In his conversation with Huggan, Slumbers seemed keenly aware of these drawbacks and suggested that the governing bodies were considering changing their proposal to better fit the golf world as a whole.
“We’ve made a decision on what we’re going to do,” Slumbers said. “We are currently working on it and will make it public before the end of the year.”
Proposed Golf Ball Rollback Would Reward a Certain Type of Player
Nick Dimengo
,
Lucas Wald, GOLF teacher to watch
What might these changes look like? Slumbers has chosen not to disclose. But that same Mike Whan press conference at the US Open might have provided some clues.
“We need to balance in the next step of input whether one ball for all or a local rule model is somehow a good approach,” Whan said then.
“I think the feedback process is important and it makes us better. Even when we don’t like the feedback we receive, it makes us better.
