Rolling back the ball

[irvnasty]

do you guys have any authorities on the subject that supports your position you can point me to? or are you just going to make fun of people that actually care about this stuff?

 

Mike Clayton was a professional golfer and is now an architect

 

I am a recreational golfer, I am therefore an authority and ambassidor for both the short hitting and the long hitting amateur. You know, the ones that buy the balls and pay to see the tournaments live, and watch them on tv getting them ad revenue. The golfers that matter.

 

i drive a car, therefor i am an expert in mechanical engineering, physics, and materials science.

 

Firstly, "therefore". Secondly, "I". Thirdly, a person who drives a car is not an expert on all its workings, but is undoubtedly where the buck stops as to the question of "is this a good car?". If it's a good car, the driver buys it. If it's not a good car, the driver doesn't buy it. Any intrinsic "goodness" of cars is a moronic construct. Cars are a product to be sold, price and accessibility are inherent qualities of a car at least as important (and, let's be honest, probably 100-1000 times more important) as the ingenuity of its engineering or the efficiency of its physics. Golf is a product to be sold. It is nothing other than that. If the car sells, it's good. If it does not sell, it's bad. It's a product. It is not an experiment in the efficiency or beauty of transportation. It's a product. Consumption demand tells us if it's adding value to people's lives. If golf sells, it's good. If it doesn't, it's bad. End of story.

 

Fourthly: https://www.geoffsha...tings-news.html

https://sgbonline.co...ajectory-in-q4/

https://www.golfdige...he-games-future

 

Finally: https://www.ibisworl...ntry-clubs.html

 

Reality: Golf is struggling due to attract young players. Golf Clubs are too conservative. Despite that, Golf Clubs gained economically over the last five years.

 

So, what have we learned? Golf is doing fine as an industry (that's all it is in any meaningful sense, after all). If it wants to do better, it should become less conservative and appeal more to younger players.

 

I leave it up to you to determine if nostalgia about distance will grow the game.

 

 

 

Whatever golf is doing, it shouldn't stop. It's selling

[PaulCGaffney]

I hope that they do. Apparently making the ball larger would help with distance, forgiveness, and how it sits up (mostly good for amateurs). I'm also a fan of anything that make a round play shorter. I feel like it takes more time each year to get 18 holes in.

[thug the bunny]

I looked up driving stats and from 2000 to 2001 avg driving distance jumped 6 yds when pros started using solid core balls, referred to as the start of the ProV era. Then they jumped another 6 yds 2002 to 2003 with the advent of large thin faced drivers. Since 2005 avg driver distance went up only 3 yds. So that's a total of 15 yds since 2000, only 6 of which can be attributed to the ball.

 

I don't see the problem. A 20% rollback would be 50 yds for a 250 drive. How is that commensurate with a 6 yd gain? Am is missing something here?

[Ashley Schaeffer]

I looked up driving stats and from 2000 to 2001 avg driving distance jumped 6 yds when pros started using solid core balls, referred to as the start of the ProV era. Then they jumped another 6 yds 2002 to 2003 with the advent of large thin faced drivers. Since 2005 avg driver distance went up only 3 yds. So that's a total of 15 yds since 2000, only 6 of which can be attributed to the ball.

 

I don't see the problem. A 20% rollback would be 50 yds for a 250 drive. How is that commensurate with a 6 yd gain? Am is missing something here?

 

Yes. A guy designed some courses 100 years ago, and he thought some holes should be attacked with 4-irons. Now, those holes are attacked with 9-irons. That's about where we are.

[Shilgy]

I looked up driving stats and from 2000 to 2001 avg driving distance jumped 6 yds when pros started using solid core balls, referred to as the start of the ProV era. Then they jumped another 6 yds 2002 to 2003 with the advent of large thin faced drivers. Since 2005 avg driver distance went up only 3 yds. So that's a total of 15 yds since 2000, only 6 of which can be attributed to the ball.

 

I don't see the problem. A 20% rollback would be 50 yds for a 250 drive. How is that commensurate with a 6 yd gain? Am is missing something here?

 

Yes. A guy designed some courses 100 years ago, and he thought some holes should be attacked with 4-irons. Now, those holes are attacked with 9-irons. That's about where we are.

I would day it differently but yeah. Alistair MacKenzie is a legendary and influential course architect. A lot of his thoughts on courses are still used today as to routing and challenges to the players.

That said...there is nothing in golf that does not change. For example trees grow. And they die. So the way courses play evolves over time. There is nothing inherent in MacKenzies work that says the challenge would never change. I am confident that if he were able to design a course today he would be up to the challenge of designing a course for the modern game. He would not be stuck in the past.

[storm319]

I looked up driving stats and from 2000 to 2001 avg driving distance jumped 6 yds when pros started using solid core balls, referred to as the start of the ProV era. Then they jumped another 6 yds 2002 to 2003 with the advent of large thin faced drivers. Since 2005 avg driver distance went up only 3 yds. So that's a total of 15 yds since 2000, only 6 of which can be attributed to the ball.

 

I don't see the problem. A 20% rollback would be 50 yds for a 250 drive. How is that commensurate with a 6 yd gain? Am is missing something here?

 

Yes. A guy designed some courses 100 years ago, and he thought some holes should be attacked with 4-irons. Now, those holes are attacked with 9-irons. That's about where we are.

 

and the 9 iron today is really closer in spec to a 6 or 7 iron from the past...

[thug the bunny]

I looked up driving stats and from 2000 to 2001 avg driving distance jumped 6 yds when pros started using solid core balls, referred to as the start of the ProV era. Then they jumped another 6 yds 2002 to 2003 with the advent of large thin faced drivers. Since 2005 avg driver distance went up only 3 yds. So that's a total of 15 yds since 2000, only 6 of which can be attributed to the ball.

 

I don't see the problem. A 20% rollback would be 50 yds for a 250 drive. How is that commensurate with a 6 yd gain? Am is missing something here?

 

Yes. A guy designed some courses 100 years ago, and he thought some holes should be attacked with 4-irons. Now, those holes are attacked with 9-irons. That's about where we are.

 

A 15 yd gain is not the difference between a 4i and a 9i. If you want to go back 100 yrs, there are many many factors since that time that contributed to that 4i - 9i difference. In 2000 pros were averaging 273 without the modern ball. Now the average is ~290. During his peak Jack was already driving 280. In 2000 without the modern ball pros were already playing a different game from that of the 1950s. Why pick on the ball?

[Ashley Schaeffer]

I looked up driving stats and from 2000 to 2001 avg driving distance jumped 6 yds when pros started using solid core balls, referred to as the start of the ProV era. Then they jumped another 6 yds 2002 to 2003 with the advent of large thin faced drivers. Since 2005 avg driver distance went up only 3 yds. So that's a total of 15 yds since 2000, only 6 of which can be attributed to the ball.

 

I don't see the problem. A 20% rollback would be 50 yds for a 250 drive. How is that commensurate with a 6 yd gain? Am is missing something here?

 

Yes. A guy designed some courses 100 years ago, and he thought some holes should be attacked with 4-irons. Now, those holes are attacked with 9-irons. That's about where we are.

 

A 15 yd gain is not the difference between a 4i and a 9i. If you want to go back 100 yrs, there are many many factors since that time that contributed to that 4i - 9i difference. In 2000 pros were averaging 273 without the modern ball. Now the average is ~290. During his peak Jack was already driving 280. In 2000 without the modern ball pros were already playing a different game from that of the 1950s. Why pick on the ball?

 

Please be advised that I agree with you.

[thug the bunny]

I looked up driving stats and from 2000 to 2001 avg driving distance jumped 6 yds when pros started using solid core balls, referred to as the start of the ProV era. Then they jumped another 6 yds 2002 to 2003 with the advent of large thin faced drivers. Since 2005 avg driver distance went up only 3 yds. So that's a total of 15 yds since 2000, only 6 of which can be attributed to the ball.

 

I don't see the problem. A 20% rollback would be 50 yds for a 250 drive. How is that commensurate with a 6 yd gain? Am is missing something here?

 

Yes. A guy designed some courses 100 years ago, and he thought some holes should be attacked with 4-irons. Now, those holes are attacked with 9-irons. That's about where we are.

 

A 15 yd gain is not the difference between a 4i and a 9i. If you want to go back 100 yrs, there are many many factors since that time that contributed to that 4i - 9i difference. In 2000 pros were averaging 273 without the modern ball. Now the average is ~290. During his peak Jack was already driving 280. In 2000 without the modern ball pros were already playing a different game from that of the 1950s. Why pick on the ball?

 

Please be advised that I agree with you.

 

Haha. I need to calibrate my tongue in cheek detector :D

[buckeyefl]

I looked up driving stats and from 2000 to 2001 avg driving distance jumped 6 yds when pros started using solid core balls, referred to as the start of the ProV era. Then they jumped another 6 yds 2002 to 2003 with the advent of large thin faced drivers. Since 2005 avg driver distance went up only 3 yds. So that's a total of 15 yds since 2000, only 6 of which can be attributed to the ball.

 

I don't see the problem. A 20% rollback would be 50 yds for a 250 drive. How is that commensurate with a 6 yd gain? Am is missing something here?

 

Yep. You missed that it is based on emotion and an agenda.

[buckeyefl]

Go Jimmy Walker.

 

“Out there in the distance, besides the setting sun, is number 7 at Pebble Beach. I’ve hit 7 iron before. It’s 107 yards. I’ve chipped a 60 degree wedge. Too many variables in an outdoor sport to grasp what is actually happening. What I do know is the USGA does not have their fingers on the pulse of the game. Taking away a putter that helps many many people enjoy the game is wrong. Rolling back the golf ball 20% is another bad idea. Ask the normal golfer how much they would enjoy the game if they flew it 20% shorter. I’m asking. Would you enjoy that? Changing golf for the masses because a small few who play it a different level is wrong. The greats and USGA have it wrong.”

[lowheel]

I looked up driving stats and from 2000 to 2001 avg driving distance jumped 6 yds when pros started using solid core balls, referred to as the start of the ProV era. Then they jumped another 6 yds 2002 to 2003 with the advent of large thin faced drivers. Since 2005 avg driver distance went up only 3 yds. So that's a total of 15 yds since 2000, only 6 of which can be attributed to the ball.

 

I don't see the problem. A 20% rollback would be 50 yds for a 250 drive. How is that commensurate with a 6 yd gain? Am is missing something here?

 

Yes. A guy designed some courses 100 years ago, and he thought some holes should be attacked with 4-irons. Now, those holes are attacked with 9-irons. That's about where we are.

I would day it differently but yeah. Alistair MacKenzie is a legendary and influential course architect. A lot of his thoughts on courses are still used today as to routing and challenges to the players.

That said...there is nothing in golf that does not change. For example trees grow. And they die. So the way courses play evolves over time. There is nothing inherent in MacKenzies work that says the challenge would never change. I am confident that if he were able to design a course today he would be up to the challenge of designing a course for the modern game. He would not be stuck in the past.

 

This is very true. look at Oakmont and Doral. Almost unrecognizable from the 80s to now.Even augusta has fallen prey to that.You cant control storms or disease unfortunately.

[aliikane]

I understand the main issue the USGA has with the playability of courses. I used to work at a golf course architect firm so I understand the thinking that the course is designed to be played a certain way. There are many excellent courses that are obsolete and cannot host PGA tour events because they are just defenseless because bunkers and hazards are not in play for most of the pros. It is difficult and near impossible to lengthen some world renown PGA courses to play like the golf course architects designed them to play. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. 20% seems like a lot to scale back. However, if they did scale back the ball, it would definitely sting a lot at first but everyone is on the same playing field it would just be status quo after a while. There would be a ton of illegal golf balls out there, though. Haha.

[Valtiel]

I looked up driving stats and from 2000 to 2001 avg driving distance jumped 6 yds when pros started using solid core balls, referred to as the start of the ProV era. Then they jumped another 6 yds 2002 to 2003 with the advent of large thin faced drivers. Since 2005 avg driver distance went up only 3 yds. So that's a total of 15 yds since 2000, only 6 of which can be attributed to the ball.

 

I don't see the problem. A 20% rollback would be 50 yds for a 250 drive. How is that commensurate with a 6 yd gain? Am is missing something here?

 

Yes. A guy designed some courses 100 years ago, and he thought some holes should be attacked with 4-irons. Now, those holes are attacked with 9-irons. That's about where we are.

 

You forgot that those 9-irons are now basically 7-irons that fly as far as 5-irons. I punched a 9-iron about 220 the other day. #rollbackthe9iron

[lowheel]

I looked up driving stats and from 2000 to 2001 avg driving distance jumped 6 yds when pros started using solid core balls, referred to as the start of the ProV era. Then they jumped another 6 yds 2002 to 2003 with the advent of large thin faced drivers. Since 2005 avg driver distance went up only 3 yds. So that's a total of 15 yds since 2000, only 6 of which can be attributed to the ball.

 

I don't see the problem. A 20% rollback would be 50 yds for a 250 drive. How is that commensurate with a 6 yd gain? Am is missing something here?

 

Yep. You missed that it is based on emotion and an agenda.

 

Respectfully, on both sides...

[OrangeGravy]

It's not humiliation. It's survival.

 

All USGA has to do is force one, single change that causes the mass of golfers to stand up and Just Say No. They will cease to be the arbiter of the game millions play.

 

At this point, it doesn't matter if they tried to force "back to Balata" or just a vigorously enforced 10% or 20% reduction in ball performance across the board. Chance are they will have blown it once and for all.

 

What % of golfers follow the USGA rules or even know who they are? What % do? Which number is bigger and by how much? Group A (non-followers) is not going to quit golfing do to anything the USGA ( who they don't follow or know about ) does or does not do. Group B (rule followers) might maybe quit if the USGA does something they don't like. I don't know what an accurate estimate of the numbers of those 2 groups are, but my guess is that group A is many times larger than group B. If that is correct, then the there is no fear of mass exodus? Again I don't know how those numbers shake out. Someone here know? I don't think there is any risk of mass exodus from anyone no matter what the USGA does. The only quitting of golf by people who enjoy it is caused by lack of time and or money. Nothing else game related will cause masses of people to quit on the spot because the masses of people play golf however they want to play it regardless of the rules right now.

[North Butte]

Geoff Shackelford is an expert on golf courses in exactly the same way Brandel Chamblee is an expert on Tiger Woods golf swing.

[deadsolid...shank]

Wow, 42 pages now. Has anyone's mind been changed yet!?

 

I do have to admit, I like seeing a few more longer approach shots into the greens. But I'm already starting to see some of the distance loss associated with age. I don't want to see my shots going even shorter because the ball doesn't go as far.

 

On the top levels, I like the idea of simply longer and wetter fairways. I think a small simple solution to a small, simple (maybe) problem. If there really is a problem.

[Roadking2003]

https://www.geoffsha..._medium=twitter

 

I don't know if I speak for more than myself but could you summarize what is in the audio. I have a strong dislike for that guy and I really don't want to sit and listen through it all when I can read a summary in a couple seconds.

 

I made it about 20 minutes. Don't know who these guys are, but they want to see 4-irons into par fours because Arnie did it, I guess. 1930-1990s was OK, but now it's not balanced, apparently. Guys used to hit more club into greens. They want to go back to those days, and we have to preserve the golf courses because Hale Irwin hit a one iron into a green once, and Ogilvy hit a 9-iron into the same green. Also, nobody cheers for drives at Augusta. That's about what I got from the first 20 minutes.

 

Maybe the USGA should outlaw 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 irons. Then they would have to hit a 4 iron.

[Roadking2003]

do you guys have any authorities on the subject that supports your position you can point me to? or are you just going to make fun of people that actually care about this stuff?

 

Golf is a game. PGA Tour golf is entertainment. All of the customers are "authorities" on the subject, not just the lowest handicapped customers or golfers with the most golf skill or course designers. The only credential needed is to be a fan of PGA Tour golf. My opinion is just as valid as Jack's opinion.

 

But here is another view you might want to listen to;

 

http://www.golfchannel.com/article/golf-central-blog/walker-rips-usga-dont-have-their-fingers-pulse-game/

[tnord]

I looked up driving stats and from 2000 to 2001 avg driving distance jumped 6 yds when pros started using solid core balls, referred to as the start of the ProV era. Then they jumped another 6 yds 2002 to 2003 with the advent of large thin faced drivers. Since 2005 avg driver distance went up only 3 yds. So that's a total of 15 yds since 2000, only 6 of which can be attributed to the ball.

 

I don't see the problem. A 20% rollback would be 50 yds for a 250 drive. How is that commensurate with a 6 yd gain? Am is missing something here?

 

Yes. A guy designed some courses 100 years ago, and he thought some holes should be attacked with 4-irons. Now, those holes are attacked with 9-irons. That's about where we are.

 

and the 9 iron today is really closer in spec to a 6 or 7 iron from the past...

 

you can wish this to be true, but it isn't so. the titleist tour model 6i from 1982 had a loft of 33deg. the 714MB 6i has a loft of 31deg, but please, keep ignoring things inconvenient with your "expert" opinion.

[Roadking2003]

do you guys have any authorities on the subject that supports your position you can point me to? or are you just going to make fun of people that actually care about this stuff?

 

Mike Clayton was a professional golfer and is now an architect

 

I don't need to have someone tell me what is right and wrong in this matter. I agree with the PGA Tour, the PGA of America, and golfers like James Hahn (who actually would be impacted by this). Everyone is entitled to their opinions. We don't need to cite sources in how we came to our opinions.

 

This is true. Pro golf is an entertainment business. The opinion of the customers is all that matters. As a customer, my opinion is actually more important than Doak's opinion. Doak's position is a service provider.

 

Doak is like the guy who sells steering wheels to GM. He doesn't get to decide the future of GM cars. The MARKET (customers) does. Pro golf is no different.

[bladehunter]

My issue is Geoff Shackelord being touted as an authority on the matter. He talks down to any and everybody that disagrees with him. I'm all up for a constructive debate. He is only interested in his side of the story. His opinion matters, but I'd say it matters less than the tour pros he's bashing that are speaking out against a change that effects them directly.

 

I say that realizing this thread has steered in that direction at times.

 

Yeah, I dispise that guy. He represents everything that kept me from liking golf until I was a teenager. He is Judge from CaddyShack. Shooter Mcgavin on Happy Gilmore lol.

 

I suppose your more of a Matt Genela ( spelling ?) guy? Your opinion is your opinion andthatd cool. Give me Shak over almost any golf pundit I can think of.

 

You Can’t really call anyone out for talking down I don’t think. So far you’ve stated that course architects don’t know more than you. Wrong. No sane person thinks that the people who design and build any product don’t now more aboot it than the end user. Surely given you’re advertisement of vocation you get that. It happens to be same as mine. So I know you do.

 

And that anyone in favor of at least looking at equipment and rollback must have a Napoleon complex. Wrong. I’m 6ft3 212 and hit it plenty long. How does that work with your theory ? Am I somehow wanting to be 7ft and I world long drive ? ( I have no desire for either).

 

Come on man. At this point I can’t agree with you just because of the jabs about how anyone who thinks oppposite is stuffy and stupid. Just not true. There’s some merit on both sides of this debate.

[Dave230]

I looked up driving stats and from 2000 to 2001 avg driving distance jumped 6 yds when pros started using solid core balls, referred to as the start of the ProV era. Then they jumped another 6 yds 2002 to 2003 with the advent of large thin faced drivers. Since 2005 avg driver distance went up only 3 yds. So that's a total of 15 yds since 2000, only 6 of which can be attributed to the ball.

 

I don't see the problem. A 20% rollback would be 50 yds for a 250 drive. How is that commensurate with a 6 yd gain? Am is missing something here?

 

Yes. A guy designed some courses 100 years ago, and he thought some holes should be attacked with 4-irons. Now, those holes are attacked with 9-irons. That's about where we are.

 

You forgot that those 9-irons are now basically 7-irons that fly as far as 5-irons. I punched a 9-iron about 220 the other day. #rollbackthe9iron

 

This. Those TaylorMade irons go a mile but I'm convinced it's just a placebo affect on making you feel good about hitting it long, when essentially you're just hitting a 7 iron with a 9 on it. Hasn't really helped me hit any more greens though, you still need to be accurate, which is why long drive champions never make the tour.

[tnord]

do you guys have any authorities on the subject that supports your position you can point me to? or are you just going to make fun of people that actually care about this stuff?

 

Golf is a game. PGA Tour golf is entertainment. All of the customers are "authorities" on the subject, not just the lowest handicapped customers or golfers with the most golf skill or course designers. The only credential needed is to be a fan of PGA Tour golf. My opinion is just as valid as Jack's opinion.

 

But here is another view you might want to listen to;

 

http://www.golfchann...ers-pulse-game/

 

i read it, both Jimmy Walker and Lucas Glover are employees of titleist, not exactly an unbiased objective view. they are speaking out against a 20% rollback of the ball "for the masses"

 

1) that won't happen because "the masses" don't compress the ball as it is. the modern equipment hasn't helped them gain distance, changing it won't hurt them either. i would argue that it will actually help them via higher spin.

2) i would not support a 20% shorter ball for the guy that can't hit it 200 either.

[Roadking2003]

do you guys have any authorities on the subject that supports your position you can point me to? or are you just going to make fun of people that actually care about this stuff?

 

Mike Clayton was a professional golfer and is now an architect

 

I am a recreational golfer, I am therefore an authority and ambassidor for both the short hitting and the long hitting amateur. You know, the ones that buy the balls and pay to see the tournaments live, and watch them on tv getting them ad revenue. The golfers that matter.

 

i drive a car, therefor i am an expert in mechanical engineering, physics, and materials science.

 

I buy cars. Therefore I am part of the market that determines what cars we will buy and that is what GM and others are interested in. I don't need to be an expert in anything. In fact, I could be as dumb as nails. But that changes nothing. I (and millions of others) buy cars, therefore, GM must cater to us even if we are dumb.

 

GM builds cars for the MARKET, not for engineers.

[bladehunter]

do you guys have any authorities on the subject that supports your position you can point me to? or are you just going to make fun of people that actually care about this stuff?

 

Golf is a game. PGA Tour golf is entertainment. All of the customers are "authorities" on the subject, not just the lowest handicapped customers or golfers with the most golf skill or course designers. The only credential needed is to be a fan of PGA Tour golf. My opinion is just as valid as Jack's opinion.

 

But here is another view you might want to listen to;

 

http://www.golfchann...ers-pulse-game/

 

i read it, both Jimmy Walker and Lucas Glover are employees of titleist, not exactly an unbiased objective view. they are speaking out against a 20% rollback of the ball "for the masses"

 

1) that won't happen because "the masses" don't compress the ball as it is. the modern equipment hasn't helped them gain distance, changing it won't hurt them either. i would argue that it will actually help them via higher spin.

2) i would not support a 20% shorter ball for the guy that can't hit it 200 either.

 

 

exactly my take... shills... for sure..both struggling and in no position to have any other opinion... It maybe their true opinion but its no accident that the ones against it are all titleist at this point and any who even hint at being for a rollback are mostly independent of a 14 club and ball contract

[tnord]

I still feel strongly that the underlying reason for the desire to nerf the ball is a deeper psychological reason. Kinda like the one where men of smaller stature feel compelled to work out and bulk up all the time.

 

I am not trying to insult btw, its a legit thing and I do think it plays a role in this.

 

are you seriously trying to say that I, as somebody that actually stands to lose legitimate distance from this, is the guy with the complex, and that those who hit it 200yds but are having seizures at the thought of losing even 1yard, are not the ones with the complex?

 

surely you jest.

 

i'd be the first 6'2'' 200lb baseball/basketball/football player with a napolean complex ever.

[Roadking2003]

i read it, both Jimmy Walker and Lucas Glover are employees of titleist, not exactly an unbiased objective view. they are speaking out against a 20% rollback of the ball "for the masses"

 

Oh, so only the paid experts who agree with you have an "unbiased objective view"? How about the bias of course designers trying to protect their designs?

[tnord]

do you guys have any authorities on the subject that supports your position you can point me to? or are you just going to make fun of people that actually care about this stuff?

 

Mike Clayton was a professional golfer and is now an architect

 

I am a recreational golfer, I am therefore an authority and ambassidor for both the short hitting and the long hitting amateur. You know, the ones that buy the balls and pay to see the tournaments live, and watch them on tv getting them ad revenue. The golfers that matter.

 

i drive a car, therefor i am an expert in mechanical engineering, physics, and materials science.

 

I buy cars. Therefore I am part of the market that determines what cars we will buy and that is what GM and others are interested in. I don't need to be an expert in anything. In fact, I could be as dumb as nails. But that changes nothing. I (and millions of others) buy cars, therefore, GM must cater to us even if we are dumb.

 

GM builds cars for the MARKET, not for engineers.

 

you of course have a valid opinion on what provides the best entertainment on the PGA Tour - if you are entertained by bomb and gouge - you are just as entitled to your opinion as i am. but the PGA Tour is entertainment, it is interested in selling advertising (to guess who, titleist maybe?) and nothing else. that is 100% their business and their motivation, advertising sales.

 

the USGA and the R&A are chartered with protecting the game of golf itself, not selling advertising.