Opinion & Analysis
Barney Adams on changing the golf ball to reduce distance
The subject has been bandied about for years—a shorter ball, two balls one for the tour and one for amateurs. I will unequivocally state that I’m 100 percent against either approach.
The first reason is historical and maybe the weakest. Golf is one of the few games where amateurs can play the same equipment, same courses lacking only the skills of the professionals. It’s this relationship that has been a significant factor in driving participation of the financial backbone of amateur golf.
To cop an old phrase, “If it isn’t broke don’t fix it.” Further, if something is done that essentially makes courses play longer, it’s playing with fire. The game has lost thousands of its most loyal participants over the last 20 years and making courses longer and more difficult isn’t on page one of the manual to change that trend.
The second and much stronger reason is basic economics. There are companies that have invested tens if not hundreds of millions over the years to produce optimally performing golf balls within the posted rules. Their efforts are closely examined by the enforcers of the rules and not put to market without a passing grade. To say to them, “Well the game has changed; what you’ve done is no longer applicable. Here are the new rules.” Further, these rules have the effect of making ball-to-ball performance very similar so that market advantage you have so carefully cultivated will be greatly diminished. I cannot fathom this approach without foreseeing it as the basis of lawsuits for years to come. You could make the same argument if there were to be a similar approach on the club side.
The same would apply to players. I hire a trainer, spend hours working out, eating carefully, all with the same objective: to gain an advantage by being able to drive the ball well past my players. Now you want to change the ground rules and eliminate my advantage—let me introduce you to my attorney.
So, what’s the next step? 8,500-9,000 yard tour courses—that is if they have room—strategically placed pot bunkers, essentially a one-stroke penalty, tricking up landing areas making luck too significant.
Or a subtle but very effective procedure. Back in my very early days, golf balls were balata, and I remember two things. If you looked at them funny, they responded with a smile, the kind that made them unputtable. Subsequent designs went from rocks to today’s ball—delightfully stable but still completely playable. Huge drives on Tour today are fades that straighten out hitting fairways with forward roll.
Never happened in the old days. Fades were soft, landed, and didn’t go very far. Slices were fades out of control, and while undesirable, they had a chance of being found and played. Hooks were anathema, the shot makers hit draws and got the advantage of extra roll. When draws became hooks more often than not they did not finish in a desirable area. “You can talk to fades and draws; hooks don’t listen.”
This was all relative to the high spin rate produced by the balata ball. And therein lies the path to my solution. I’m not advocating a return to balata. I’m saying today’s ball making expertise can produce a ball that loses nothing in distance but adds spin, which is a way of saying it emphasizes shotmaking. This may be as direct as changing the dimple pattern.
This change would strike directly to the heart of the long hitter who naturally produces the most spin. He (or she) could not simply depend on clubhead speed—it would have to be balanced by shotmaking skill. We aren’t changing the course, we aren’t producing a short-hitting ball, we are emphasizing shotmaking. No distance loss for amateurs, just more understanding that it’s about controlling your ball.
We retain the good things about the game without a lawsuit infested upheaval.
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
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!
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.
‘Why would anybody want to change that swing?’ – Brandel Chamblee says PGA Tour star was wrong to change his swing
‘The stupidest freaking thing I’ve ever heard’ – Billy Horschel slams Open idea suggested by Padraig Harrington
WITB Time Machine: Brandt Snedeker’s winning WITB, 2018 Wyndham Championship
Golfer proudly posts photo of ball mark on iron, receives immediate roasting
WITB Time Machine: Matthew Wolff’s winning WITB, 2019 3M Open
Oakmont Country Club bans Wyndham Clark over locker incident; Reveals specific conditions to earn reinstatement
Adam Scott puts Callaway blades in the bag at Wyndham Championship
Report: LIV star fires caddie and coach in shock shake up
Rickie Fowler makes equipment change to ‘something that’s a little easier on the body’
The championship formula: How 3 key stats separate winners from the field
Peter Malnati WITB 2025 (August)
Peter Malnati what’s in the bag accurate as of the Wyndham Championship. More photos from the event here. Driver: Titleist...
Cameron Young’s winning WITB: 2025 Wyndham Championship
Driver: Titleist GT2 (9 degrees, A1 SureFit setting) Buy here. Shaft: Mitsubishi Tensei 1K Pro Orange 70 TX 3-wood: Titleist...
Camilo Villegas WITB 2025 (July)
Camilo Villegas WITB accurate as of the Wyndham Championship. Villegas was undecided on a 3-wood when we shot his bag. ...
WITB Time Machine: Brandt Snedeker’s winning WITB, 2018 Wyndham Championship
Brandt Snedeker fired a final-round 65 at the 2018 Wyndham Championship to outlast Webb Simpson and C.T. Pan. His 5-under...
Brysoon McFaldough
Dec 17, 2020 at 7:18 pm
I have the best and simplest solution: determine the winner of every tournament based on the player with the lowest number of strokes. That way, driving the ball far isn’t the only metric, it’s an advantage only balanced by irons, wedges, short game and putting. And a course can’t be “obsolete”, because whether the ball is driven 250 or 350, whether the approach is 5 iron or SW, everyone plays the same course and can use the same equipment, the difference being their ability and effort.
Oh, right, that’s what it already is.
Maximillian
Dec 17, 2020 at 7:23 pm
Brysoon,
you’re a doofus. Any player who can drive it past 300 should be penalized. Who cares is that’s natural ability or hard work? Shorter hitters have a disadvantage and course designers’ egos are being damaged beyond repair. Who will protect the egos of the private club members whose courses are no longer “too tough for the pros”?
Any player who drives it past 300 should get a 2 stroke penalty (and a $10,000 fine paid to the course architect). Any player who can’t hit it 300 should get a free drop at the 150 marker.
Also, grow the rough to 2′ and make any grooves on wedges illegal.
Also, ban all players over 6’2″ and body fat less than 25%.
Keith
Dec 17, 2020 at 2:40 pm
What about having a specially made golf ball for major tournament only similar to tennis.
Keith
Dec 17, 2020 at 2:38 pm
You say “Golf is one of the few games where amateurs can play the same equipment”. I beg to differ here because pros clubs particularly drivers are made exactly to the pros specifications. These drivers yo don’t find in the pro shop or golf store.
Maximillian
Dec 19, 2020 at 1:54 am
Amateurs CAN play the same equipment; there are plenty of clubfitters who can build you a club to tour specs. You can have a putter made to your exact specs from scratch.
Being too cheap to do it doesn’t mean it can’t be done.
George
Dec 17, 2020 at 1:42 pm
The PGA is trying to ruin golf. People want to see the low scores and want to use the same equipment to see how they compare. Who cares if they shoot 40 under? Seriously? Old dudes gonna ruin the game. Rhinos.
Ken Moum
Dec 17, 2020 at 10:59 am
Barney, as the USGA proved in 1930 when they increased the size of the ball to its current 1.68″ and dropped the weight to 1.55 oz.
The resulting product was called the “balloon ball” and the weight was quickly put back at 1.62 oz. But those were wound balata balls.
With today’s balls a lighter standard would do everything you’re asking for. As clubhead speeds went up, the ball would curve more.
But the REAL benefit is that it would make it easier for Jr. golfers, women and seniors to get the ball airborne and keep it airborne. It might even increase their distance.
greg
Dec 16, 2020 at 10:53 pm
Kyle
You nailed it. This is only an issue in tournament golf. All others need not apply.
For select tournaments, no drivers allowed, a two wood or other fairway wood as a tee shot option.
Please leave the ball alone.
matt
Dec 16, 2020 at 1:14 pm
Is Barney doing ok? Just wondering if someone in his inner circle needs to have an intervention. Did he just argue (and I’m honestly asking, this is incomprehensible drivel) that we cannot change the ball, but we need to change the ball.
Bsrney Adams
Dec 16, 2020 at 2:32 pm
I now hold the record for most interventions that haven’t worked My regular golf buds dropped me. Playing as a single, early evening tee time.
don
Dec 16, 2020 at 11:17 am
oldandgrey I would leave everything alone. when Bryson starts to win every week then maybe do something. Been playing on and off since 1961. The problem is with the average golfer trying to be something that will never happen. everything is distance. Now that my drives are mostly all under 200 yds I started to use forward tees. now golf is fun again. every oldtimer I know inflates his game must be a mental defect with the truth. every time I play younger or older I’m almost eighty, in the club they all drive it 230 to 250 or so but on the course they hit it under 200 or off to the right or off to the left. One of the biggest problems is men trying to be what will never happen. Just go out use the forward tees and have fun..
Kyle EricSon
Dec 16, 2020 at 2:25 am
So my solution is slightly different … limit the number of clubs to only 12. I don’t think most pro’s would want to eliminate any of their short irons or wedges, so maybe they’d eliminate a couple of the longer clubs (driver, utility iron, 2 iron, etc.) and then tee off with 2 or 3 woods. Of course these guys still bomb 3 woods but it would reign in the distances somewhat. Just my two cents …
happyday_j
Dec 15, 2020 at 7:55 pm
If the only move is by increasing spin on the golf ball, that will only make the game easier.
Guys will just play a lower spinning driver head to get the same launch characteristics that they have now. So distance of the tee being reduced by spin get negligible.
However now your increasing spin on all other shot, which therefore means more control, sort of like when then tried to reduce spin by changing the grooves…
2over
Dec 15, 2020 at 10:53 pm
Brilliant. Having grown up playing balata balls I’ve long maintained this is the way. in the 80’s, early 90’s a really good player could take the spin off the long clubs and hit draws for distance. Guys who merely had clubhead speed saw a lot of up shooting spinners that went nowhere especially into the wind.
You could make a ball that would still go far for the player who can hit up on the driver with a square face and minimize spin…
Johnny5
Feb 26, 2021 at 1:34 pm
Wrong. Having a driver that spins less means you are playing either lower lofts or a driver with forward CG. Either of those options decrease backspin, but INCREASE sidespin. Add in a ball with more spin to that and it will be very difficult to hit the ball straight. Old clubs could work around this with the higher gear effect but today’s clubs have much less gear effect to work with.
Tim
Dec 15, 2020 at 6:30 pm
Easiest way to control distance is to limit the tee height when teeing up the ball. This is equivalent to MLB lowering the mound height to get more action from the hitters. I’ve seen some videos address tee height and there can be 15 yd difference between teeing the ball low vs high. It’s a cheap answer that doesn’t cause mass rollbacks of the club or ball.
Lg
Dec 15, 2020 at 5:29 pm
Just ignore the ball. Go back to the rule we had in the early 2000’s where am’s were playing Hi-Cor drivers and pro’s weren’t. In other words reduce the CT for the pro’s drivers, 3 woods and driving irons. They’ll still look cosmetically the same as those played by recreational golfers, but just with thicker clubfaces. There’s 20 yards straight away. Then go to a 44″ shaft limit, again it won’t affect sales because a company can still say that this pro plays this or that etc etc.
Then for gods sake can we slow the fairways down, just do what the do at Augusta, slightly thicker fairways grown back towards the tee…and no this won’t favour the player who carries it further because all the evidence suggest that the like of Rory, Bryson get more roll after the ball has landed. Put these together and you have 20-30 yards and the game is relevant again!
ben
Dec 15, 2020 at 4:20 pm
I think you miss the point when adressing the problem this way. If you play shorter, the game becomes even harder for the short hitters… The only way to made it fair is either to limit swing speed with radars (and give a penalty each time the radar bips) or put more obstacles and penalty areas betwin 320 and 370 yards…
Peter Steward
Dec 15, 2020 at 3:59 pm
Never understood why that problem is so difficult to solve. Just don’t cut the fairway in the driver landing zone from 300 – 330 yards two weeks in advance of a PGA tournament. Every player will avoid hitting driver on those wholes. Problem solved. Cut the grass monday morning after the tournament and members and guests can play on as usual. Shorter balls are not the way to go. Ever hit balls on a range that had these 20% or 30% length reduced balls because the range is too short in size? Been on a range in Dublin that had 50% reduced length balls. Total crap, everybody hates that. For a reason, it is just no fun.
USGA would-be
Dec 15, 2020 at 3:54 pm
This is stupid. Just mandate a condition of competition that you must play with a 60-compression ball. This goes away immediately.
matt
Dec 16, 2020 at 1:19 pm
yup… long hitter would still be long – although the gap would narrow… we could play faster, find stray shots quicker, reduce course size, reduce maintenance costs. If you’re the longest hitter in your group you’ll retain your status – people would adjust in about 2 weeks. Don’t get why people shudder at the idea. Really short hitters wouldn’t even lose distance, a lower compression ball is what they need anyhow.
Kevin Ricciardelli
Dec 15, 2020 at 12:45 pm
Another way to reduce distance among the fastest swingers is to limit the size of the clubheads. I don’t think that Bryson would want to swing that hard with a 275 or 300 cc driver head. Far less MOI means less control.
Jon
Dec 15, 2020 at 12:32 pm
Make the cup smaller for the pros.
gordy3279
Dec 15, 2020 at 12:18 pm
here’s a pretty simple fix. Keep the ball the same but require pros to play smaller heads and steel shafts in all their clubs. Like baseball between college and the pros. College baseball players play aluminum bats and pros play wooded. The ball is the same. I guarantee if the pros played smaller heads with steel shafts swing speeds would go down. No way you get 130+ swing speed with a 275cc head and a steel shaft.
Statmagic
Dec 15, 2020 at 12:01 pm
Which golf ball manufacturer is going to the be the first to say “our ball doesn’t go as far”?
What exactly is the total available market for those who purchase that ball? I’m going to venture a guess and say there is no market for that ball.
Ben
Dec 15, 2020 at 11:57 am
Making the ball balata again won’t do much. About 15 years ago, my friend found some Tour Balata 90s in his dad’s garage so we took them out. This was peak Pro V1 years, which hasn’t changed if you’ve seen videos online. The ball did spin more but the distance wasn’t all that different. With the driver maybe 10 yards, irons were about 5. But the short game was so much easier because you can spin the heck out of it. I don’t see how rolling back the ball or putting limits on the dimples will do anything. A dimpleless golf ball flies really straight. So now you’re giving the big hitters even more advantage by limiting the dimple pattern. Just let golf be golf. People are playing like crazy, even in a pandemic and people are watching it on tv too. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
Statmagic
Dec 15, 2020 at 11:54 am
Barney poking that snake with a stick.
I guess everyone is just bored these days and need to rehash the same old stuff.
Scott Shields
Dec 15, 2020 at 11:47 am
The solution is easy:
Grow out the rough ….
Soften fairways …
Harden greens ….
Make bunkers actually hard to hit from by either not racking them or making them waste bunkers….
You won’t need to change the length of any course when missing fairways actually becomes punitive.
As far as the ball goes, what’s done is done, just restrict further increases to what’s already out there, you certainly can’t take away from what exists.
TonyK
Dec 15, 2020 at 11:35 am
Dimple (aero) regulation is the easiest.
It is possible to not affect pretty much any club but the driver only with higher swing speed 110+.
WRXFan
Dec 15, 2020 at 11:32 am
Please stop giving this guy credibility. he had one good golf invention 25 years ago, and that was it.
gwelfgulfer
Dec 15, 2020 at 3:28 pm
This… The hypocrisy is awesome when a former owner of an equipment company that tried to push boundaries and create equipment that would make the ball go further, crying about the ball going further… Barney failed and was taken over/bought out, yet here wrx still gives him a voice…
Karl Furno
Dec 15, 2020 at 11:17 am
Great article! The charm of the game is that we play the same rules that the pros play. Period. Duh, we know pros have tour heads and custom shafts but that’s not what separates them from us. DJ and Rory don’t hit it 50yds pst us because of a tour model, it’s because of talent, mechanics, and conditioning.
Paulo
Dec 15, 2020 at 10:34 am
There is no distance problem in golf. People pushing limits is what sport is all about.
Henny Bogan
Dec 15, 2020 at 10:32 am
1. The average player does not play the same equipment that tour players do and does not play on the same courses under the same conditions as tour players do. If they did, the number of people who would leave the game would be astronomical, it would simply be too hard for too many. The game self-bifurcated years ago, even if we don’t want to admit it. There is not harm or shame in publicly acknowledging that.
2. Your argument that changing the rules put on golf ball manufactures would cost them too much money and lead to lawsuits, but then you proposed a ball that spins more? How would you enforce a higher spinning ball unless you changed the rules put on golf ball manufactures? The golf ball is the most logical place to impact the game because golf balls are a disposable commodity. Players go through them at high rates and changing the golf ball formula would not impact the players spending habit. They’re going to buy new balls in the near future anyway. This is the cheapest avenue to invoke change and will impact the OEM the least.
3. There is nothing stopping golf ball manufactures from making golf balls that do not meet the specs of the USGA or R&A. They choose to build to those specs because that is what golfers want. This is exactly what the courts would say to them if they try to sue the USGA. Illegal balls and clubs are sold today, nothing is there to stop them from being sold and used on a golf course.
Matt
Dec 15, 2020 at 10:03 am
If you add spin to the ball, especially off the driver, you are naturally going to reduce distance given how optimized drivers and driver swings are today. This is impossible
John Ward
Dec 15, 2020 at 10:02 am
Haha so your reasons are history and economics……….you sir, are the problem.
Money and tradition over the betterment of the game and its participants. This sounds awfully familiar! Where’s your blonde wig?
Also I noticed you are “100 percent against” a shorter ball, yet your grand solution was to create a spinnier ball aka a shorter ball. What do you think spin does?
You want to preserve the “tens if not hundreds of millions” of R&D dollars put forth by ball companies, yet you want to change the construction of the ball? Isn’t that a paradox?
You’re yelling at the clouds man. Your kids are sitting there saying “Ok dad, sounds good dad” and waiting for you to pick up the bill
A. Commoner
Dec 15, 2020 at 9:30 am
Right on, Barney! I truly miss the way golf used to be.
Travis
Dec 15, 2020 at 9:02 am
Does it matter at this point? Either do it, or don’t do it, but stop just talking about it. This stupid discussion has been going on for years with zero resolution one way or another. Take action and be done with it.
A. Commoner
Dec 15, 2020 at 9:43 am
Whom are you addressing?
Statmagic
Dec 15, 2020 at 11:57 am
Exactly right. Does years of discussing the same thing actually do anything?
Money is the only thing that would prompt change. What golf ball manufacturer is going to the be the first to say “our ball doesn’t go as far”?
Answer: none of them will.