Opinion & Analysis
A few thoughts on the distance debate

The USGA and the R&A seem to be determined to limit the distance a player can hit the ball. They seem to be driven mad when they see Dustin Johnson or Brooks Koepka hit a ball that lands at 270-280 and rolls out to 315. I sometimes wonder if I could actually watch the members of the rules committee as their faces turned red when one of these shots takes place.
I think it has reached a boiling point and something has to give. I have read the opinions of golfers from all over the world, and most don’t think it’s a problem, but there are a few who want the USGA/R&A to step in. The argument is always the same, and to me it doesn’t hold water. The people that are pro-regulation always cite the fact that many players on the pro tours hit driver and then a wedge into greens, and it makes the game too easy or makes a mockery of the golf course.
My reaction to this is twofold. For the USGA/R&A to step in and use heavy-handed tactics to force the manufactures to make a ball that doesn’t go as far is nuts. It goes against everything that the free market stands for. If this was only one company that had done something so different that it made their product 50 yards longer, I could almost understand, but that is not the case. I would be willing to bet that if you got the Ping robot out and hit all four of the major brands premium balls they would all go about the same distance. The backspin off a wedge or 7-iron would be close as well, so I think they are all quality products.
In addition: how are you going to regulate this new rule? With drivers, you can set a size limit at 460CC, or in the Ping case from 1990, you can say that it must have a specific type of groove. In the case of the ball, you can’t do that because of the swing speed difference in each player. With the big hitters having a swing speed above the 120 MPH mark they will naturally hit the ball further. If a player like Jordan Spieth that has an average swing speed of 114 mph he won’t hit it as far so how do you create a ball that is fair for everyone? It’s not the ball: it’s the physics of the game that we have to look at. Do modern tour balls go further than 25 years ago? No question. But I don’t think you can regulate this.
So, the second part of my argument is: make the courses penalize someone for hitting it 280 on the carry. It is possible, and I point out two holes on the PGA tour. Number 10 at Riviera, and Number 10 at Colonial. In both cases, the hole is built to keep people from hitting driver. At Riviera, the shape of the hole along with the bunkers guarding the green make it a hole that you can hit driver to (but don’t count on a good score). At Colonial, you simply run out of fairway and have a ditch that you would end up in if you take driver off the tee. This is the answer to this issue not a series of rules on how the ball is built. Let the rough grow in at that 275-320 yard landing spot. Maybe put bunkers there or in the southwest, zero scape that area so your ball would land out there with the scorpions and rattlesnakes. If we take a page from some of the great English courses and have tall thick grass that you need a machete to get through, you will find players hitting it to a safe spot and then playing up from there.
The other thing this will do is add to the excitement of playing and watching that hole as it’s played. If the wind is behind the player and they are down two strokes do they try and go for it or will they play it safe? Will a player make the mistake of hitting it into that area and then risk a bad second shot that goes over the green? This is how you solve this issue, not with legislation. I am not saying we rip up Augusta and rebuild it or give Pebble Beach a Hollywood-style makeover. I am saying add subtle changes to the areas where most players land to make it a real tough choice to pull out that driver. This is also not something that has to be done on every hole of a course either. Just a few holes and I think this issue would go away.
Opinion & Analysis
The 2 primary challenges golf equipment companies face

As the editor-in-chief of this website and an observer of the GolfWRX forums and other online golf equipment discourse for over a decade, I’m pretty well attuned to the grunts and grumbles of a significant portion of the golf equipment purchasing spectrum. And before you accuse me of lording above all in some digital ivory tower, I’d like to offer that I worked at golf courses (public and private) for years prior to picking up my pen, so I’m well-versed in the non-degenerate golf equipment consumers out there. I touched (green)grass (retail)!
Complaints about the ills of and related to the OEMs usually follow some version of: Product cycles are too short for real innovation, tour equipment isn’t the same as retail (which is largely not true, by the way), too much is invested in marketing and not enough in R&D, top staffer X hasn’t even put the new driver in play, so it’s obviously not superior to the previous generation, prices are too high, and on and on.
Without digging into the merits of any of these claims, which I believe are mostly red herrings, I’d like to bring into view of our rangefinder what I believe to be the two primary difficulties golf equipment companies face.
One: As Terry Koehler, back when he was the CEO of Ben Hogan, told me at the time of the Ft Worth irons launch, if you can’t regularly hit the golf ball in a coin-sized area in the middle of the face, there’s not a ton that iron technology can do for you. Now, this is less true now with respect to irons than when he said it, and is less and less true by degrees as the clubs get larger (utilities, fairways, hybrids, drivers), but there remains a great deal of golf equipment truth in that statement. Think about it — which is to say, in TL;DR fashion, get lessons from a qualified instructor who will teach you about the fundamentals of repeatable impact and how the golf swing works, not just offer band-aid fixes. If you can’t repeatably deliver the golf club to the golf ball in something resembling the manner it was designed for, how can you expect to be getting the most out of the club — put another way, the maximum value from your investment?
Similarly, game improvement equipment can only improve your game if you game it. In other words, get fit for the clubs you ought to be playing rather than filling the bag with the ones you wish you could hit or used to be able to hit. Of course, don’t do this if you don’t care about performance and just want to hit a forged blade while playing off an 18 handicap. That’s absolutely fine. There were plenty of members in clubs back in the day playing Hogan Apex or Mizuno MP-32 irons who had no business doing so from a ballstriking standpoint, but they enjoyed their look, feel, and complementary qualities to their Gatsby hats and cashmere sweaters. Do what brings you a measure of joy in this maddening game.
Now, the second issue. This is not a plea for non-conforming equipment; rather, it is a statement of fact. USGA/R&A limits on every facet of golf equipment are detrimental to golf equipment manufacturers. Sure, you know this, but do you think about it as it applies to almost every element of equipment? A 500cc driver would be inherently more forgiving than a 460cc, as one with a COR measurement in excess of 0.83. 50-inch shafts. Box grooves. And on and on.
Would fewer regulations be objectively bad for the game? Would this erode its soul? Fortunately, that’s beside the point of this exercise, which is merely to point out the facts. The fact, in this case, is that equipment restrictions and regulations are the slaughterbench of an abundance of innovation in the golf equipment space. Is this for the best? Well, now I’ve asked the question twice and might as well give a partial response, I guess my answer to that would be, “It depends on what type of golf you’re playing and who you’re playing it with.”
For my part, I don’t mind embarrassing myself with vintage blades and persimmons chasing after the quasi-spiritual elevation of a well-struck shot, but that’s just me. Plenty of folks don’t give a damn if their grooves are conforming. Plenty of folks think the folks in Liberty Corner ought to add a prison to the museum for such offences. And those are just a few of the considerations for the amateur game — which doesn’t get inside the gallery ropes of the pro game…
Different strokes in the game of golf, in my humble opinion.
Anyway, I believe equipment company engineers are genuinely trying to build better equipment year over year. The marketing departments are trying to find ways to make this equipment appeal to the broadest segment of the golf market possible. All of this against (1) the backdrop of — at least for now — firm product cycles. And golfers who, with their ~15 average handicap (men), for the most part, are not striping the golf ball like Tiger in his prime and seem to have less and less time year over year to practice and improve. (2) Regulations that massively restrict what they’re able to do…
That’s the landscape as I see it and the real headwinds for golf equipment companies. No doubt, there’s more I haven’t considered, but I think the previous is a better — and better faith — point of departure when formulating any serious commentary on the golf equipment world than some of the more cynical and conspiratorial takes I hear.
Agree? Disagree? Think I’m worthy of an Adam Hadwin-esque security guard tackle? Let me know in the comments.
@golfoncbs The infamous Adam Hadwin tackle ? #golf #fyp #canada #pgatour #adamhadwin ? Ghibli-style nostalgic waltz – MaSssuguMusic
Podcasts
Fore Love of Golf: Introducing a new club concept

Episode #16 brings us Cliff McKinney. Cliff is the founder of Old Charlie Golf Club, a new club, and concept, to be built in the Florida panhandle. The model is quite interesting and aims to make great, private golf more affordable. We hope you enjoy the show!
Opinion & Analysis
On Scottie Scheffler wondering ‘What’s the point of winning?’

Last week, I came across a reel from BBC Sport on Instagram featuring Scottie Scheffler speaking to the media ahead of The Open at Royal Portrush. In it, he shared that he often wonders what the point is of wanting to win tournaments so badly — especially when he knows, deep down, that it doesn’t lead to a truly fulfilling life.
View this post on Instagram
“Is it great to be able to win tournaments and to accomplish the things I have in the game of golf? Yeah, it brings tears to my eyes just to think about it because I’ve literally worked my entire life to be good at this sport,” Scheffler said. “To have that kind of sense of accomplishment, I think, is a pretty cool feeling. To get to live out your dreams is very special, but at the end of the day, I’m not out here to inspire the next generation of golfers. I’m not out here to inspire someone to be the best player in the world, because what’s the point?”
Ironically — or perhaps perfectly — he went on to win the claret jug.
That question — what’s the point of winning? — cuts straight to the heart of the human journey.
As someone who’s spent over two decades in the trenches of professional golf, and in deep study of the mental, emotional, and spiritual dimensions of the game, I see Scottie’s inner conflict as a sign of soul evolution in motion.
I came to golf late. I wasn’t a junior standout or college All-American. At 27, I left a steady corporate job to see if I could be on the PGA Tour starting as a 14-handicap, average-length hitter. Over the years, my journey has been defined less by trophies and more by the relentless effort to navigate the deeply inequitable and gated system of professional golf — an effort that ultimately turned inward and helped me evolve as both a golfer and a person.
One perspective that helped me make sense of this inner dissonance around competition and our culture’s tendency to overvalue winning is the idea of soul evolution.
The University of Virginia’s Division of Perceptual Studies has done extensive research on reincarnation, and Netflix’s Surviving Death (Episode 6) explores the topic, too. Whether you take it literally or metaphorically, the idea that we’re on a long arc of growth — from beginner to sage elder — offers a profound perspective.
If you accept the premise literally, then terms like “young soul” and “old soul” start to hold meaning. However, even if we set the word “soul” aside, it’s easy to see that different levels of life experience produce different worldviews.
Newer souls — or people in earlier stages of their development — may be curious and kind but still lack discernment or depth. There is a naivety, and they don’t yet question as deeply, tending to see things in black and white, partly because certainty feels safer than confronting the unknown.
As we gain more experience, we begin to experiment. We test limits. We chase extreme external goals — sometimes at the expense of health, relationships, or inner peace — still operating from hunger, ambition, and the fragility of the ego.
It’s a necessary stage, but often a turbulent and unfulfilling one.
David Duval fell off the map after reaching World No. 1. Bubba Watson had his own “Is this it?” moment with his caddie, Ted Scott, after winning the Masters.
In Aaron Rodgers: Enigma, reflecting on his 2011 Super Bowl win, Rodgers said:
“Now I’ve accomplished the only thing that I really, really wanted to do in my life. Now what? I was like, ‘Did I aim at the wrong thing? Did I spend too much time thinking about stuff that ultimately doesn’t give you true happiness?’”
Jim Carrey once said, “I think everybody should get rich and famous and do everything they ever dreamed of so they can see that it’s not the answer.”
Eventually, though, something shifts.
We begin to see in shades of gray. Winning, dominating, accumulating—these pursuits lose their shine. The rewards feel more fleeting. Living in a constant state of fight-or-flight makes us feel alive, yes, but not happy and joyful.
Compassion begins to replace ambition. Love, presence, and gratitude become more fulfilling than status, profits, or trophies. We crave balance over burnout. Collaboration over competition. Meaning over metrics.
Interestingly, if we zoom out, we can apply this same model to nations and cultures. Countries, like people, have a collective “soul stage” made up of the individuals within them.
Take the United States, for example. I’d place it as a mid-level soul: highly competitive and deeply driven, but still learning emotional maturity. Still uncomfortable with nuance. Still believing that more is always better. Despite its global wins, the U.S. currently ranks just 23rd in happiness (as of 2025). You might liken it to a gifted teenager—bold, eager, and ambitious, but angsty and still figuring out how to live well and in balance. As much as a parent wants to protect their child, sometimes the child has to make their own mistakes to truly grow.
So when Scottie Scheffler wonders what the point of winning is, I don’t see someone losing strength.
I see someone evolving.
He’s beginning to look beyond the leaderboard. Beyond metrics of success that carry a lower vibration. And yet, in a poetic twist, Scheffler did go on to win The Open. But that only reinforces the point: even at the pinnacle, the question remains. And if more of us in the golf and sports world — and in U.S. culture at large — started asking similar questions, we might discover that the more meaningful trophy isn’t about accumulating or beating others at all costs.
It’s about awakening and evolving to something more than winning could ever promise.
joe
Mar 27, 2019 at 7:02 pm
If a player like Jordan Spieth that has an average swing speed of 114 mph he won’t hit it as far so how do you create a ball that is fair for everyone?
huh? what?
Greg V
Mar 26, 2019 at 12:36 pm
More and more Americans have come to believe in climate change caused by greenhouse gasses, and yet we continue to buy more and more trucks (unnecessarily) and larger SUVs. It would be better for the environment to go back to smaller, more gas efficient cars. But few people will do that when everyone else is driving a monster mobile.
It is the same in golf. But if we all played a shorter ball and less COR efficient drivers, it would be better for the footprint of the game. And for those who feel that the short hitting recreational golfer would suffer – we can move up a set or two of tees.
MT
Mar 26, 2019 at 10:35 am
Funny that Gil Hanse tried this on 12 at TPC Boston (added a centerline bunker in the landing area to add some strategy to the tee shot) and the pros whined so much they got rid of the bunker the following year.
James Miller
Mar 26, 2019 at 9:37 am
I agree with the author. If distance were “making a mockery” of the courses, we’d see much lower scores winning tournaments. Really, the scores are no lower than they were 25 years ago. Yes, the courses are longer, but as long as there are tees we hacks can play at 6200 yards, I see no problem.
And another thing, when you’re talking about distance, the proper word is farther, not further.
Richard Douglas
Mar 26, 2019 at 3:15 am
Go ahead. Dial back the ball. Make it spin more like a Titleist (wound, liquid center, balata cover). That’s fine. It will hold back the professionals.
Oh, and they’ll be easy to find. The woods will be filled with them, launched on a slicing trajectory by every hacker around.
Team sports are not plagued by this problem. A football field has been 100 yards (sorry, Canada) for all time. Even baseball parks are essentially the same–a little longer down the lines and a little shorter in the alleys and in center. Even basketball–with almost every NBA player being able to dunk–has been able to keep the rim height and court size the same.
But individual sports are another matter. Tennis had to put a limit on racquet size. Swimming banned full-body suits that acted like a shark’s skin. Bowling has long wrestled with limits on making the ball hook, from the hardness of the shell to total ball weight and weight distribution. (It lost. Throwing strikes is so common and so boring it killed the sport.) But golf?
Golf used to be able to keep the ball tamed. This was largely due to limited technology. You could hit a distance ball, but it was hard as a rock and didn’t perform on or around the greens. Or you could hit a spinny balata. Not much in between. Spin or distance was the dilemma. Top Flite began ending that with the Strata and Titleist shut it down with the ProV1.
When titanium made other-worldly things possible, the USGA stepped in and limited COR and clubhead size and club length. It can certainly revisit the ball.
Tiger Noods
Mar 25, 2019 at 9:27 pm
Everyone wants to watch pros make a mockery of courses. That’s the point; they’re pros.
It’s like saying “we don’t want race cars to go that fast because most people don’t drive so fast”.
Don’t act like there aren’t already ball regulations. If we all wait 5 years, you’ll look back and see that it’s maxed out. Athletes figured out that bomb and gouge works. Now if you want to be more penal at 300yds, then you’ll remove the advantage.
Change the lawnmower settings, people.
James
Mar 25, 2019 at 7:19 pm
here’s the funny thing about driving distance, it varies. From last year to this year the avg drive has actually decreased slightly
Gerard
Mar 25, 2019 at 6:40 pm
The average carry on tour hasn’t went up a ton in the past 20 years, maybe 5-10 yards. The problem is every PGA/USGA/R&A tournament is played on fast firm courses due to better maintenance practices. Everything is sand based and drains well. They schedule events around the country based on weather. When things are warm and dry. They don’t play in the midwest until late June. Courses need to be set up without being firm and fast(fairways). Amateurs play on normal courses in normal conditions not dry and stressed out. We get average 10-15 yards of roll.With average roll on tour when hitting a fairway being between 30-40+ yards it makes a 7300 yard course play like a 6800 yard course. Trackman data shows PGA tour average carry at 275yds but average total driving distance around 304. The USGA are idiots if they try to dial back the ball. It is simply the way courses are set up that is allowing the guys on tour to stretch their drives not any equipment. The USGA is to blame for the distance debate because how they set up courses not equipment companies.
Terry, this is not a Game
Mar 25, 2019 at 4:27 pm
Adjust course setups. Thicker rough, narrower landing areas, etc. But why not have all member tours of the IGF have different equipment? The ball should not change as it will affect the amateur game and that’s not good, but how about all card carrying pros use blades? How about their drivers/woods becoming very unforgiving? MLB/MILB uses wooden bats across the board. When a college kid turns pro in baseball, he knows what changes and adjustments he’s going to have to make in order to play at the next level.
Guys will ALWAYS figure out how to bomb it. Let’s just see mishits become punishing.
Nathan
Mar 25, 2019 at 3:35 pm
280 carry? Try 320 on the fly! Even Jordan can carry it 300.
Gerard
Mar 25, 2019 at 6:44 pm
Speith’s average carry is 279.6
Ccshop
Mar 25, 2019 at 3:31 pm
USGA trying to regulate golf balls based on Tour player numbers is only going to hurt the amateur level. Leave the ball alone. This won’t help grow the game.
Greg V
Mar 25, 2019 at 2:29 pm
Tom,
The USGA and R&A already limit the distance the ball can go through an initial velocity limit, and limits on the size and COR of the driver.
What’s wrong with tweaking the limits so that the elite players can go back to playing 6,500 yard courses instead of 7,500 yard courses?
Josh L.
Mar 25, 2019 at 3:24 pm
Limiting ball flight penalizes everyone, what about the guy who only drives it 230? If he loses 10 yards because of a roll back on balls thats huge for him, especially when the rollback is meant for the top 1% of players who can actually overpower courses.
Jagon D.
Mar 25, 2019 at 2:27 pm
While I also think that the ball should be rolled back, I do tend to agree that once it is where it is — we can only limit it from this point. I have no problem with physically gifted athletes launching shots, but it’s the course set-ups that have me scratching my head.
If pros want fast surfaces around the green complexes, that’s fine, but carrying a driver 285 that rolls out to 330, because the fairway is essentially an airport landing strip with grass shavings, is ridiculous.
Bring in the fairways, actually put some water on them, make the rough penal, and we’re good to go. However, you can’t punish guys like DJ, Cameron Champ, and the like, outright — just because they’re beasts in terms of length.
Jim
Mar 25, 2019 at 3:55 pm
Jagon states what actually needs to be done. Fairway grass needs to be longer, less roll, softer conditions and have fairways narrow after 280 or create actual strategic holes. The Valspar showed that when they actually play a tough narrow golf course, the winning score doesn’t hit 10 under.
A. Commoner
Mar 27, 2019 at 10:19 am
Good points, jag. I only disagree with ‘rolling back’ anything or keeping all ‘as is’. When talking applied technology, we’re either all-in or all-out. The potential problems underneath Pandora’s box lid would be migraine magnified with a pick and choose approach.
DB
Mar 25, 2019 at 2:14 pm
You’re suggesting common sense ?!?