USGA and R&A announce proposal to limit golf ball performance for elite level competition

[Need4spd]

1 hour ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

The is a valid approach.

 

the caveat to this is reducing the forgiveness of the driver in any way shape or form is going to be far more impactful to the amateur golfer than the elite amateur and professional.

 

20 years ago driver was the hardest club to hit in the bag for most, now it’s arguably the relatively easiest.  Reducing maximum distance the ball travels 4-10 yards will have less of an impact.

Also a valid point. I can’t believe I’m saying this, but when I think about it I’d even be okay with bifurcation of the driver. I’m not suggesting a drastic change either. I’m not suggesting we go back to the 975D (though that was a spectacular driver), maybe 400CC, or 420CC, or a slight change to the way bulge and roll is used. Just spitballing here, I clearly don’t have all the answers.

 

There’s just something about saying, “no matter what you do we’re going to make it impossible for you to do what you did yesterday” that doesn’t sit well with me, that’s all.

Edited May 12 by Need4spd

[gvogel]

6 hours ago, chisag said:

 

 

... Why now? The USGA has been concerned about the distance a golf ball travels going back about 100 years and have made many ball rule changes to limit the distance a ball travels. The USGA is not some evil organization trying to ruin the current game, just some guys that love golf and trying to do what they think is best for the game. Per the Talking Heads:

Same as it ever was, same as it ever was
Same as it ever was, same as it ever was
Same as it ever was, same as it ever was
Same as it ever was, same as it ever was


1931: After conducting research and testing over the course of 5 years, the USGA places new limitations on the golf ball noting that the “United States Golf Association will take whatever steps necessary to limit the power of the ball with regard to distance, should any ball of greater power be introduced. They also note that “The report of this Committee [Implements and Ball] for the year 1930 would not be complete without mention of the splendid support given by the Golf Ball Manufacturers who, during a period of substantial re-adjustment in their manufacturing equipment, have shown every co-operation and desire to serve the best interests of the game.” (Year Book of the United States Golf Association, 1931)

The weight of the ball shall be not greater the 1.55 ounces avoirdupois, and the size not less than 1.68 inches in diameter. (Rules of Golf, 1931)

 

1932: The lighter ball lasts only one year. While players found the size of the ball uniformly popular and preferable to play, the weight of the ball was found to be of insufficient to hold its course in the wind and was easily diverted by irregularities on the putting green. The USGA returns to a maximum weight of 1.62 oz and retains the minimum diameter at 1.68-in as the American ‘standard’ ball. The R&A keeps the 1.62-in and 1.62 oz. ball as the British ‘standard’ ball.
 

1937: “On June 5, 1936 the principal golf ball manufacturers and members of the Golf Ball Manufacturer’s Association, with the exception of the Penfold Company, which is not a member, were called together at Baltusrol and were told that the U.S.G.A. viewed with alarm the increasing flight of balls during the past few years. Each manufacturer present promised that he would not bring out for merchandising a ball of greater distance than those already on the market without first notifying us in writing.” (Year Book of the United States Golf Association, 1937)
 

1942: The USGA implement a velocity standard [Initial Velocity Standard (IV)] for golf balls stating: “This has the effect of “freezing” the distance qualities of the ball at the length of the 1941 ball.” (Year Book of the United States Golf Association, 1942)

 

The weight of the ball shall not be greater than 1.620 ounces avoirdupois, and the size not less than 1.680 inches in diameter. The velocity of the ball shall not be greater than 250 feet per second when measured on the U.S.G.A’s apparatus; the temperature of the ball when so tested shall be 75 degrees Fahrenheit; a maximum tolerance of 2% will be allowed on any ball in such velocity test. (Rules of Golf, 1942)
 

1956: Note added to Rule 2. The Club and the Ball reserving the right of the USGA and R&A to change the rules regarding the club and ball at any time.

Rule 2. The Club and the Ball. The United States Golf Association and the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews, Scotland, reserve the right to change the Rules and the interpretations regulating clubs and balls at any time. (Rules of Golf, 1956)
 

1973: “Concerned that specific recent aerodynamic developments in ball dimpling and the introduction of the graphite shafts might render the existing distance regulations inadequate”, meetings with manufacturers leads to indoor and outdoor tests of golf balls is undertaken. (Year Book of the United States Golf Assocation, 1973)
 

1974: After significant evaluation and testing the Uniform Ball program is abandoned. The American ‘standard’ ball is adopted for the Open Championship.

The development and establishment of an Overall Distance Standard becomes a top priority.
 

1976: The USGA and R&A implement the Overall Distance Standard (ODS) for golf balls effective March 1, 1976. The goal to “limit future technological development aimed at increasing the distance a golf ball can travel.” (Year Book of the United States Golf Association, 1976).

A brand of golf ball, when tested on apparatus approved by the USGA on the outdoor range at the USGA Headquarters under the conditions set forth in the Overall Distance Standard for golf balls on file with the USGA, shall not cover an average distance in carry and roll exceeding 280 yards, plus a tolerance of 8%. (Note: The 8% tolerance will be reduced to a minimum of 4% as test techniques are improved.) (Rules of Golf, 1977)
 

1980: With the development of golf balls designed to correct, in flight, a hook or a slice, a new standard for golf balls requiring that “the ball shall be designed and manufactured to perform in general as if it were spherically symmetrical” is adopted.
 

1986: The 8% tolerance (4% test tolerance and 4% innovative tolerance) associated with the ODS is reduced to 6% (296.8 yds), reflecting a 4% innovative tolerance with a 2% test tolerance.

A brand of golf ball, when tested on apparatus approved by the USGA on the outdoor range at the USGA Headquarters under the conditions set forth in the Overall Distance Standard for golf balls on file with the USGA, shall not cover an average distance in carry and roll exceeding 280 yards plus a tolerance of 6%. Note: The 6% tolerance will be reduced to a minimum of 4% as test techniques are improved. (Rules of Golf , 1986)
 

1998: The USGA announces that is “developing and intends to implement tests for golf balls and clubs to strengthen standards designed to limit the distance that the most highly skilled players can drive a golf ball”. The press release announces the adoption of the test for the spring-like effect and the initiation of golf ball testing using the USGA Indoor Test Range (USGA Press Release, November 3, 1998)

 

this is really a great post on the developments in testing the golf ball by the USGA.  What stands out to me is the experiment in 1931 with the lighter ball that came to be known as the floater.  The change was made in response to greater driving distances which resulted from the legalization of steel shafts in 1926.  The floater was too difficult to play in the wind, so the USGA returned in 1932 to the previous specs.  However, it is interesting that the ball manufacturers went along with the 1931 ball change without much protest.

 

The present change of measuring the overall distance standard at a higher swing speed is a tweak, not a substantial change such as the 1931 ball.  The 2028 ball will probably not satisfy the roll back crowd, and apparently it will upset a portion of the playing public.  We'll see what happens.

[mgoblue83]

43 minutes ago, gvogel said:

this is really a great post on the developments in testing the golf ball by the USGA.  What stands out to me is the experiment in 1931 with the lighter ball that came to be known as the floater.  The change was made in response to greater driving distances which resulted from the legalization of steel shafts in 1926.  The floater was too difficult to play in the wind, so the USGA returned in 1932 to the previous specs.  However, it is interesting that the ball manufacturers went along with the 1931 ball change without much protest.

 

The present change of measuring the overall distance standard at a higher swing speed is a tweak, not a substantial change such as the 1931 ball.  The 2028 ball will probably not satisfy the roll back crowd, and apparently it will upset a portion of the playing public.  We'll see what happens.

 

This is why they should have went with bifurcation.

 

Not sure why anyone is actually against it. You don’t see anyone complaining that amateurs can use metal bats while pros have to use wooden.

Edited May 12 by mgoblue83

[CDM]

You know what works getting out and playing. 

 

Get out and play and enjoy it vs worrying about it until it happens

[ThinkingPlus]

9 minutes ago, mgoblue83 said:

 

This is why they should have went with bifurcation.

 

Not sure why anyone is actually against it. You don’t see anyone complaining that amateurs can use metal bats while pros have to use wooden.

Because it is only fair that everyone feels the pain including the blue blazer and tweed jacket bunch making the rules.

[Pnwpingi210]

48 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Because it is only fair that everyone feels the pain including the blue blazer and tweed jacket bunch making the rules.

Ha.  It’s money!    The pros and a lot of elite amateurs don’t pay for equipment.  Bifurcation means oems will have to r&d and produce a whole line of equipment that needs to best it can be for a customer that doesn’t pay for it…..while continuing to produce and innovate of a retail model for the masses.  
 

  That just means costs will go for the oems and passed on to their paying customers.   People will buy less and less frequent cause it will cost them measurable more.  Hugely disruptive from a business perspective  to the oems at a time where they have people upgrading on a 1-2 year cycle.

I think it has little to do with equity of experience 🙂

 

[fowlerscousin]

Chick's dig the long ball

Edited May 12 by fowlerscousin

[maamold]

On 5/11/2024 at 5:51 PM, bekgolf said:

How long have limitations been in place for golf equipment?

How long have those limitations been deemed not enough?

[GoGoErky]

8 hours ago, maamold said:

How long have those limitations been deemed not enough?

Not enough according to who? The ones living in the past? 
 

 For what segment of golfer? 

Edited May 13 by GoGoErky

[smashdn]

On 5/10/2024 at 5:49 PM, Archimedes65 said:

H

 

Honestly, IMO, if a course doesn’t have the land to stretch beyond 6,400-6,500 yards, that’s a them problem. They didn’t have the foresight to allow for some expansion of the course and the industry shouldn’t bend over just to accommodate them.  Anyone who finds them too short, should just go play somewhere else.  And if there really is a course that the pros can’t play at anymore, either use a limited ball there, or just go somewhere else.  The sport needs to evolve.  Other than Augusta, there really is no course on the PGA Tour that could not be replaced with another equally compelling longer course, though the traditionalists will whine about it until late into the night.  It would be sad to lose some iconic courses, but that’s life.  Life moves on.  Golf is the one sport that can’t seem to accept that it’s not 1968 anymore. The days of Arnie and Jack, and even Tiger, are over.  We have a new crop of great young, far more athletic, golfers, who are making golf way more exciting than it used to be.  Is the solution to this supposed problem to disrupt the entire golfing world just so that a few inconic country club courses are still relevant, rather than maybe taking this new crop of PGA elite players to some new venues that were designed with the 21st century in mind?

 

What if you can't just "go to another courses?"  The issue is not confined to professionals either.  

 

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/tournament-rollback-usga-golf-ball

 

Be kind of hard to take the Ohio state championship or Ohio state am out of Ohio, or any other state for that matter.  Ohio probably is sitting better than most states too.  Wonder what the rotation for the Rhode Island State Am looks like?

[maamold]

58 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

Not enough according to who? The ones living in the past? 
 

 For what segment of golfer? 

How is slowing the ball down "living in the past?" Why can't it just be the ruling bodies deciding that the equipment is too quick and advanced which takes some course features and skills out of the game? 

Edited May 13 by maamold
Grammar

[maamold]

54 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

What if you can't just "go to another courses?"  The issue is not confined to professionals either.  

 

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/tournament-rollback-usga-golf-ball

 

Be kind of hard to take the Ohio state championship or Ohio state am out of Ohio, or any other state for that matter.  Ohio probably is sitting better than most states too.  Wonder what the rotation for the Rhode Island State Am looks like?

Yep, Played last year at a well known club in my area with a "Young Stick" (Columbia Edgewater, maxed out at 6800 and course was still fairly damp from the weather). Fairly narrow course but well maintained. I still remember watching him play and some of the clubs he hit, it stuck with me because what he was hitting was insane to me.

1st hole - par5, pound driver over tree's, 154 to the pin hit's a SW from the right rough to the front of the green. 2nd hole - par 4, 3 wood then chips out of the rough to the green, birdie. 3rd hole, par 5 bummed that his drive only went 340 because of the spring conditions, has to hit a 5i from 235 when normally he said he'd hit his 7i from 200. The round went on and on like that. Never hit anything longer than the 8 iron into the greens the rest of the day. Bomb and gouge, I think he said he was 10 or 11 under, he said he would have scored better during the summer (I believe him).

 

Famous course that can't get any longer. I can't imagine watching a bunch of pro's tear that place up, after awhile watching everyone birdie and eagle every hole wouldn't even be that interesting.

Edited May 13 by maamold

[mgoblue83]

59 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

Not enough according to who? The ones living in the past? 
 

 For what segment of golfer? 

 

For every segment of golfer in the future. Nothing to do with the past at all.

[mgoblue83]

2 minutes ago, maamold said:

Yep, Played last year at a well known club in my area with a "Young Stick" (Columbia Edgewater, maxed out at 6800 and course was still fairly damp from the weather). Fairly narrow course but well maintained. I still remember watching him play and some of the clubs he hit, it stuck with me because what he was hitting was insane to me.

1st hole - par5, pound driver over tree's, 154 to the pin hit's a SW from the right rough to the front of the green. 2nd hole - par 4, 3 wood then chips out of the rough to the green, birdie. 3rd hole, par 5 bummed that his drive only went 340 because of the spring conditions, has to hit a 5i from 235 when normally he said he'd hit his 7i from 200. The round went on and on like that. Never hit anything longer than the 8 iron into the greens the rest of the day. Bomb and gouge, I think he said he was 10 or 11 under, he said he would have scored better during the summer (I believe him).

 

Famous course that can't get any longer. I can't imaging watching a bunch of pro's tear that place up, after awhile watching everyone birdie and eagle every hole wouldn't even be that interesting.

 

This is what it's like at almost every high school tournament we play. The guys just send driver and have no issue coming out of the rough at all. For a lot of players hitting wedges out of the rough is easier than a 7i in the fairway anyway. No, the high school players don't birdie every hole because golf is hard but it's still just incredibly boring not having to think and just sending driver no matter what.

[Simpsonia]

1 hour ago, maamold said:

Yep, Played last year at a well known club in my area with a "Young Stick" (Columbia Edgewater, maxed out at 6800 and course was still fairly damp from the weather). Fairly narrow course but well maintained. I still remember watching him play and some of the clubs he hit, it stuck with me because what he was hitting was insane to me.

1st hole - par5, pound driver over tree's, 154 to the pin hit's a SW from the right rough to the front of the green. 2nd hole - par 4, 3 wood then chips out of the rough to the green, birdie. 3rd hole, par 5 bummed that his drive only went 340 because of the spring conditions, has to hit a 5i from 235 when normally he said he'd hit his 7i from 200. The round went on and on like that. Never hit anything longer than the 8 iron into the greens the rest of the day. Bomb and gouge, I think he said he was 10 or 11 under, he said he would have scored better during the summer (I believe him).

 

Famous course that can't get any longer. I can't imagine watching a bunch of pro's tear that place up, after awhile watching everyone birdie and eagle every hole wouldn't even be that interesting.

 

And this kid is in the top .0000001% of all golfers (only mildly exaggerated). Why are you talking about pros at this random club? Do you think that literally every club in America needs to be capable of hosting a professional tournament? If not, then why bring it up.

 

Not every course has to cater to the top .000001% of golfers or professional tournaments, and I think that's ok. 

[maamold]

1 hour ago, Simpsonia said:

And this kid is in the top .0000001% of all golfers (only mildly exaggerated). Why are you talking about pros at this random club? Do you think that literally every club in America needs to be capable of hosting a professional tournament? If not, then why bring it up.

 

Not every course has to cater to the top .000001% of golfers or professional tournaments, and I think that's ok. 

You're missing the plot again. It's not about the golfers, it's about the equipment. Give that kid non-super equipment and he wouldn't be able to bomb and gouge the course.

And I think controlling the equipment in all sports is ok.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

I won't rest until some dude can't overpower Columbia Edgewater.  You can't just go around hitting the ball that far and scoring that low.  It's unfair.  He should have to be more skilled to shoot those scores.  

[SlothofDespond]

4 hours ago, mgoblue83 said:

 

This is what it's like at almost every high school tournament we play. The guys just send driver and have no issue coming out of the rough at all. For a lot of players hitting wedges out of the rough is easier than a 7i in the fairway anyway. No, the high school players don't birdie every hole because golf is hard but it's still just incredibly boring not having to think and just sending driver no matter what.

 

Bad news: that's still going to happen. Lop off some distance and that elite clubhead speed becomes EVER MORE valuable. So, I guess if you want a sport more dominated by the strongest, fastest swinging players, who just hit every ball off the tee as hard as possible... this rule change is for you!

[GoGoErky]

5 hours ago, maamold said:

How is slowing the ball down "living in the past?" Why can't it just be the ruling bodies deciding that the equipment is too quick and advanced which takes some course features and skills out of the game? 

Why does the ball need to be slowed down? It’s not having any negative impact on the professional game and is only being pushed by a small minority who don’t like the current game. No course is becoming obsolete, no modern course can’t host a professional tour including a major and despite the claims from the ruling bodies about preserving ceremony courses they have no issues using those same courses for elite golf tournaments and even in qualifying rounds for their biggest touanemnt of the year don’t max out golf course length so if 7000-7200 is too short why do they play elite level events at that distance.
 

golf is in a great spot. Why take it backwards for a less than 1% of the golfing population perceived issue

 

and I know you like the 1993 comparison to the 2003 distance numbers as your justification but the post you replied to earlier was making the point that distance is alienated for and capped for the last 20 years 

[Barnacle]

On 5/9/2024 at 10:45 AM, smashdn said:

 

Firstly, I didn't come up with that number.  I quoted it from someone else and used their number in an example in a reply to them.

 

Secondly, If you have only played with three people who can hit it further than 300 yards you aren't getting out much.  Where do you live that there are that few golfers capable of that?  Just at my club there are that many.  County to the north of me (~140k pop) is a college town and has three private clubs.  Even if there were only one player at each club and one on the D1 men's golf team that would be more than that.

 

Maybe I am just in a "golf rich" area that is atypical but I kind of doubt it.

*sigh* First of all nice deflection, you didn't come up with the random number but you sure where happy to use it. Can't believe I have to explain this still but whatever. You don't have a bunch of people at your club that hit it over 300 yards. You have a bunch of people that connect once in a while and actually hit it straight with a 280 carry and maybe 20 yards of roll out. The rest of the time they are slicing it 260 into the next fairway but because they hit it 300 once a round they tell everyone they can actually hit it that far. 

I play about twice a month and that has been pretty consistent for the last 2 decades. I play in Northern California and Northern Nevada and even in Nevada at 3000+ feet I don't run into people that can hit it far. You are basically suggesting that we need a crappier golf ball because a few people like me exist that don't play on tour. 

[Archimedes65]

On 5/12/2024 at 1:13 AM, James the Hogan Fan said:

 

Like I said, the IIHF doesn't oversee the NHL, but their rules are used by most European leagues as far as I'm aware.

 

But are you saying FIFA and the International Football Association Board do not exercise control over the professional leagues? Or are you saying they are professional organizations? Or that soccer is not a major professional sport? 

 

Basically it sounds like you want the PGA-Tour to split off and create it's own PGA-tour ruleset. That would have a long list of pros and cons which have been repeated throughout the thread. 

 

The PGA Tour should have its own rules, and to the extent they don’t perfectly align with the USGA, so be it.  NBA rules aren’t identical to FIBA rules.  NHL rules aren’t identical to IIHF rules or USA Hockey rules.  MLB rules aren’t identical to College or High School rules.  NFL rules aren’t identical to NCAA football rules.  Why does pro golf have to bow to every single edict of the USGA?  Pro sports are first and foremost ENTERTAINMENT, and anything that entertains fans, grows the game, and SELLS more equipment should be supported.  Rolling back the ball and/or drivers will do NONE of that.

[Archimedes65]

15 minutes ago, Barnacle said:

*sigh* First of all nice deflection, you didn't come up with the random number but you sure where happy to use it. Can't believe I have to explain this still but whatever. You don't have a bunch of people at your club that hit it over 300 yards. You have a bunch of people that connect once in a while and actually hit it straight with a 280 carry and maybe 20 yards of roll out. The rest of the time they are slicing it 260 into the next fairway but because they hit it 300 once a round they tell everyone they can actually hit it that far. 

I play about twice a month and that has been pretty consistent for the last 2 decades. I play in Northern California and Northern Nevada and even in Nevada at 3000+ feet I don't run into people that can hit it far. You are basically suggesting that we need a crappier golf ball because a few people like me exist that don't play on tour. 

 

Agreed, with a caveat.  At my club I think we have about 15 guys who are plus handicaps.  But I’d say less than five drive the ball more than 275 on average, and the ones that do are the younger ones.  That said, I have played at different courses with some good high school and college players and to a one they averaged  at or over 300 yards.  Some of the young kids coming up are crazy long.

 

[Simpsonia]

3 hours ago, maamold said:

You're missing the plot again. It's not about the golfers, it's about the equipment. Give that kid non-super equipment and he wouldn't be able to bomb and gouge the course.

And I think controlling the equipment in all sports is ok.

 

Who the eff cares what some amateur kid shoots in a random non-competitive round at some random golf course? Like seriously why should anyone other than that kid care what he shot or how he how did so?

 

Are you out there policing collars on shirts too? What else do you feel the need to control about random strangers? 

[Archimedes65]

7 hours ago, smashdn said:

 

What if you can't just "go to another courses?"  The issue is not confined to professionals either.  

 

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/tournament-rollback-usga-golf-ball

 

Be kind of hard to take the Ohio state championship or Ohio state am out of Ohio, or any other state for that matter.  Ohio probably is sitting better than most states too.  Wonder what the rotation for the Rhode Island State Am looks like?

 

Why can’t you just play those tournaments with a different ball, like they did there?  The idea that it would be too costly for the manufacturers is nonsense.  They’re already making those types of balls!!  Geez, Titleist could just revert back to the last ProV model that would meet the specs and be done with it.

 

And you do know that if you added up all the people playing the top level amateur events in the entire US, it would represent a fraction of 1% of the total golfing population, right?  Even if you threw in every golfer scratch or better, and all the fat old tweed wearing golf elitists, you’d still be well below five percent of the total golfing population.  Is this not the very definition of the tail wagging the dog?

Edited May 13 by Archimedes65

[mgoblue83]

41 minutes ago, Archimedes65 said:

 

Agreed, with a caveat.  At my club I think we have about 15 guys who are plus handicaps.  But I’d say less than five drive the ball more than 275 on average, and the ones that do are the younger ones.  That said, I have played at different courses with some good high school and college players and to a one they averaged  at or over 300 yards.  Some of the young kids coming up are crazy long.

 

I know you are anti-rollback but this is exactly why the change is necessary. It’s not about the game right now. It’s about preserving the game for the future because you are exactly right. The kids coming up are so incredibly long and getting longer every year that in 10-20 years all of the issues it causes will be a major problem in the sport. 

[maamold]

49 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

Who the eff cares what some amateur kid shoots in a random non-competitive round at some random golf course? Like seriously why should anyone other than that kid care what he shot or how he how did so?

If you don't care about non-competitive rounds at random courses them play whatever equipment you want to play. Want to play a 2026 ball in 2030 go for it, want to play a driver with 300 microsecond CT time go for it. If you want to call whatever sport you play with that equipment "Golf", have at it.

 

49 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

Are you out there policing collars on shirts too? What else do you feel the need to control about random strangers? 

I'm not policing or controlling anything, I'm saying that if the ruling bodies have decided to change equipment rules based on studies and observations then I'll follow their rules.

[Archimedes65]

1 hour ago, mgoblue83 said:

I know you are anti-rollback but this is exactly why the change is necessary. It’s not about the game right now. It’s about preserving the game for the future because you are exactly right. The kids coming up are so incredibly long and getting longer every year that in 10-20 years all of the issues it causes will be a major problem in the sport. 

 

Well I disagree that it would continue to be some linear growth in distance if you froze the ball and driver at today’s standards.  And I have no problem with the game changing to stress distance, even if certain courses are now played ‘not as the architect intended’. It’ll still be a tiny fraction of golf and it’s way more exciting than watching Pros skip 5 irons through firm greens.

[Archimedes65]

34 minutes ago, maamold said:

If you don't care about non-competitive rounds at random courses them play whatever equipment you want to play. Want to play a 2026 ball in 2030 go for it, want to play a driver with 300 microsecond CT time go for it. If you want to call whatever sport you play with that equipment "Golf", have at it.

 

I'm not policing or controlling anything, I'm saying that if the ruling bodies have decided to change equipment rules based on studies and observations then I'll follow their rules.

 

And you’re cool with that ‘ruling body’ being a very small group of amateur overlords.  So sayeth the USGA, amen…

[maamold]

52 minutes ago, Archimedes65 said:

And you’re cool with that ‘ruling body’ being a very small group of amateur overlords.  So sayeth the USGA, amen…

What kind of argument is that? Are you are saying you must have been a professional golfer to know what the rules and regulations should be? You know who Gary Player and Patrick Reed are, right?

[Archimedes65]

51 minutes ago, maamold said:

What kind of argument is that? Are you are saying you must have been a professional golfer to know what the rules and regulations should be? You know who Gary Player and Patrick Reed are, right?

 

No, I’m saying that the entire golf world shouldn’t be beholden to a small group of people who run an amateur organization.  I wasn’t commenting on whether they were ex pro golfers or not.  This is like giving FIBA the power to write the rules of how the NBA and NCAA Basketball is played.  I wonder how US players would feel if all of the sudden they had to use that golf awful Molten ball.