In this first installment of what could become a series, Matt and Andy discuss a golf topic that they find interesting or important. This is not an interview or debate, just a conversation that took place over email so it can be shared with you. If you like it, let us know in the comments. If there is a question you would like to see discussed, please share that as well. THANKS.
Matt and Andy discuss scoring versus fun in golf HERE
Andy: The golf ball’s comeback was announced this week by the USGA and the R&A. To summarize, by 2030 there will be new regulations on golf balls that will make the ball shorter than it is today. A 300 yard drive will be 15 yards shorter, and a 225 yard drive will be 11 yards shorter. One thing is for sure, everyone on the internet has many strong opinions. This is a complex topic and it’s difficult to summarize in a single tweet. So this might be a good time to exchange emails. What are your initial thoughts about the golf ball being shorter?
Mast: My knee-jerk reaction to this announcement is disappointment. I have long been a proponent of bifurcation. It seemed like we were heading towards that, but instead we were treated to universal pushback.
My second reaction is a lot of curiosity. I can’t wait to find out how this new, shorter ball will change my perception of the game. As I sit here now, I’d like to say it doesn’t matter, but I don’t know. I’m even more curious to see how the other factions in the game react. What will the PGA Tour do? What will the manufacturers do? What will the average golfer do?
The USGA and R&A are not the emperors of the game. Titleist can tell them to pound sand and continue making the current (or better) Pro V1. The PGA Tour could play with the current ball year-round and allow players to change only for the U.S. and British Opens. I think there are countless interesting possibilities and conflicts.
Where are you on this?
Andy: In fact, I was more interested in the conversation around the announcements than the announcements themselves. I think that says a lot about what people are interested in and what they find important. “Golf ball rollback” and “Making the ball go short” make it all so extreme. it’s not going to work that much shorter, and it will have no impact that many parts of the game. This will have no impact on putting, chipping and greenside bunkers. The irons will be half a club shorter, so not a huge difference there. The place we’ll notice it most will be off the tee with the driver. I have an idea based on the commercials I see on TV, but how is the traffic on Plugged in Golf when there is a review of a new driver versus a new putter or new irons?
Mast: Drivers are #1, but not as much as you might think.
I think you’re right about what you’re saying: distance is really important to people. Or at least that’s what the internet would have me believe. But I think it’s true. If there wasn’t so much ego wrapped up in distance, OEMs wouldn’t be playing games with irons the way they do.
This brings me back to reactions. Will this usher in an era where significant numbers of golfers play with substandard equipment? If the PGA Tour is non-compliant, will it even be considered non-compliant?
Andy: I think people want to follow the rules, otherwise they wouldn’t make such a fuss about change.
The way people react to things gives an idea of what they think is most important. The reaction to this situation has been so extreme that people must think it will have a negative impact on their golf experience. They equate a slightly less distance with a worse experience. This line of thinking is wrong. By that logic, they would be thrilled if things went the other way and the USGA made the golf ball travel further. Would going further improve people’s experience? Would golf be a better game if equipment allowed 50% of players to reach a distance of 350 yards?
Golf is about challenge, competition, fun, creativity, fascination, personal development and many other things. None of these aspects of golf are diminished by the ball being slightly shorter, so the overall experience will be more or less the same. I get annoyed when people get so upset about things like this, because I think they don’t understand what makes golf so great. Now, someone might say that maybe what people love most about the game is throwing bombs within the rules, but I think if they spent a little more time thinking before yelling at the TV and the internet, they would see that there is a lot more they love about the game.
Mast: As far as “playing by the rules” goes, I think people may feel a difference between seeking out non-compliant equipment now and sticking with what they’ve known their entire golfing life. But, again, I think it depends on what the Tour does and what the OEMs decide to make and promote. Plus, I think the idea of following rules is pretty flimsy for most people. How many people never take a mulligan, never make a putt, etc.? ?
I think your second paragraph is a bit of a straw man and a bit judgmental. For the first, I think most people just don’t like change. They can reach 200 now. Reaching 210 is exciting because it’s beyond their norm. If you gave them a new ball that immediately flew 300 yards, they wouldn’t appreciate it the same way because they would know they didn’t do anything to “deserve” it. When the ball changes, they will hit it 190, and it will be unpleasant because it is below their standard. Will they adapt? Probably. I think it’s like the groove rule (now I sound old) where people used to get a little upset and then get over it.
Regarding the second part, I don’t disagree with you that golf is about more than going far, but I try not to tell people what they should or shouldn’t enjoy. I’ve spilled a lot of digital ink trying to get people to think about other elements of the game, but there’s a visceral pleasure in seeing the ball go fast and far. As “enlightened” as I try to be, I’m happiest when I’m driving the ball well. If you give me the choice between shooting the same score with a good drive or with scrappy wedges and putting, I’ll take the drive every time. So while I’m not going to go crazy about the flashback, I have some empathy for those who are upset about it.
Andy: I’m trying to withhold judgment, but I guess I have stronger feelings about this than I originally thought. I agree, people can enjoy whatever they want. I also enjoy running long distances, so it’s lucky that we can all still run long distances! We may not be able to carry all the bunkers we are used to, but we will be fine. This back and forth helped me clarify some sort of conclusion, so I hope this can help others with their thinking:
Golf is something that means a lot to me. There is a historical element, but there is also a sacred element. It was the source of connections with my father, my brother and my friends. It was an escape from stress. It’s a place where I learned a lot about myself and the world. It is a place of meditation. It has been the source of many of my best memories. This has been very important to my development and growth as a person. So when tour pros and commentators go on TV and say that backtracking is the worst thing that can be done in golf, maybe I should ignore it, ignore it, or say they can say whatever they want. But these loud voices tend to trivialize what I consider to be the best parts of the game. They make it harder for others to see the heights and depths of everything there is to playing golf.
So yes, everyone is free to form their own opinion, but can we put the golf ball and distance back in their rightful place, as something that is part of the game of golf, but in no way defines our entire experience with it?
Mast: I would like to think that this last point is the subject of universal consensus. Distance is a lot of fun, backswing can be stupid, but there’s more to golf than just hitting the ball far. We would all do well to keep this in mind.
In your frustration with the anti-pushback comments, I see some of my own frustration with other things. Many media outlets are hyperbolic. Many media outlets – social and otherwise – are encouraged to make us reactive rather than thoughtful. Nuance is shunned rather than rewarded.
The only self-critical thing I will say about our discussion is that it doesn’t include anyone’s opinion that is short. Maybe you and I can ignore this more easily, since we’ll still be driving it at 250+. I can imagine that people who have difficulty maintaining a 200 or 150 meter journey feel the loss of a few meters quite intensely.
Andy: Yes, okay. This would have been the main argument in favor of the bifurcation and a ball reserved for professionals. They decided that bifurcation would hurt the game more than the fact that moving the ball back would impact everyone. It was clear they were going to do something, and I would have been OK with either outcome.
Where are you after all this? Satisfied with the result? Against ? Neutral?
Mast: I’m…meh. I was a strong advocate of bifurcation and wanted to see a fairly significant step back. I think it would have been good for golf. Move the pros back considerably so they can play somewhere like Pasatiempo. Let the OEMs sell the “Tour” ball and the “Rec” ball. For the fraction of golfers who want to compete on Tour, they can. The rest of us can continue to play like we have for twenty, thirty years.
This current version doesn’t really bother me, but it doesn’t excite me at all. If this plays out as proposed, I don’t think it will reduce the negative aspects of distance gains in the professional game. This will annoy some recreational players. This seems like a compromise that makes everyone unhappy. But I hope we get something better.
Andy: In its report, the USGA said it would continue to monitor the driver and how forgiving he is of off-center hits. Hopefully they give us a minute to catch our breath, I’m not sure we can handle another announcement anytime soon!
More from Matt and Andy
Editor-in-chief has Trendy golf
He founded Plugged In Golf in 2013 with the goal of helping all golfers play better and enjoy the game more.
Matt lives in the northwest suburbs of Chicago with his wife and two daughters.
