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

[gvogel]

5 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Why do you care how a ball feels?

I don't care about how a ball feels; in fact I prefer firmer like ProV1x.  And even at my pathetic swing speed, the firmer balls performs better for me.

 

I was simply making a statement about how a Titleist 80 compression ball felt compared to some modern balls.

[StoutKing]

8 hours ago, Titleist99 said:

Point #1....most golf fans could give a rats ars about the designer's intent or architecture in general, surely the new fans won't care.

 

Point #2......The only thing more boring than wedge every hole is four irons and woods into every hole. If most fans want to watch that the LPGA would be more popular.

 

For the millionth time, the game is about a score relative to par. If par is irrelevant stop keeping the score, then.

 

**It's a game, not a beauty contest.  IMO 

 

***Fans want to see exactly what they saw at Pinehurst #2. Long drives and drama. Nothing else matters and I think that I speak for 90% of golf fans. Not that that matters to you or the USGA. IMO

99,

 

I think we get get this thread to 500 pages with this injection of excitement.  Props to us, ha ha.  

 

Anyway, in golf there is no opposition physically stopping you from achieving your goal.  There is no 6'5" 310 pound dude with 10% body fat who runs a 4.6 40 and benches 225 35 times physically stopping you from achieving your goal.  Who are golfers battling?  The course of course; the architecture.  That's the only real reason the great courses are great. 

 

What did the most prolific golf architect in America Mr. Donald J. Ross say about his beloved #2? 

 

"It is obviously the function of a championship course to present competitors with a variety of problems that will test EVERY TYPE of shot a golfer of championship ability should be qualified to play.  Thus, it should call for long and accurate tee shots, accurate iron play, precise handling of the short game, and finally, consistent putting."

 

He continues, "These abilities should be called for in a proportion that will not permit excellence in any one department of the game to largely offset deficiencies in another."

 

A couple paragraphs later, " I consider the ability to play the longer irons as the supreme test of a great golfer.  That is the ultimate test of a golfers skill.  A golfer who is playing his long irons well will benefit in competitions at Number Two."

 

What we saw yesterday were driver wedge / sand wedge on 500+ par fours.  That doesn't sound like testing every shot, nor was it a test of the long irons.  

 

You said: Point #2......The only thing more boring than wedge every hole is four irons and woods into every hole. If most fans want to watch that the LPGA would be more popular.

 

Can you please point out which par fours were approached with four irons and woods yesterday?  Specifically you said every hole.  It didn't happen every hole.  I don't recall Bryson or Rory approaching a par 4 with a fairway wood second shot.  Correct me if I'm wrong.  Golfers should be battling the course with a diversity in types of par 4s: drivable, drive and pitch, drive and mid iron, drive and long iron and occasionally drive and fairway wood.  In the absence of an opponent physically stopping the golfer we need diversity of shots in proportion to challenge the golfer as Mr. Ross said, not disproportion. 

 

Carry on sir.  I think we can get to 500 pages by Troon.  :) Cheers :) :)  

[StoutKing]

Double post

Edited June 18 by StoutKing

[StoutKing]

Just one generation ago @Titleist99 - when equipment matched the architecture - was one of the most exciting US Opens in history.  In fact, that's all Bryson talked about yesterday.  They even built a statue of the winner; and guess what, even though he hit some long irons into par 4s, people wanted to get a picture with the statue all week.  Watch the back 9 and tell me the 1999 Payne Steward US Open wasn't exciting.

 

 

[Golfnutgalen]

7 minutes ago, StoutKing said:

Just one generation ago @Titleist99 - when equipment matched the architecture - was one of the most exciting US Opens in history.  In fact, that's all Bryson talked about yesterday.  They even built a statue of the winner; and guess what, even though he hit some long irons into par 4s, people wanted to get a picture with the statue all week.  Watch the back 9 and tell me the 1999 Payne Steward US Open wasn't exciting.

 

 

The course was wet to be fair, but the field only averaged 260 back then, Tiger was 3rd at 284, Phil 270, Payne 255. They averaged 310 this year. Different ballgame for sure. 

Edited June 18 by Golfnutgalen

[GoGoErky]

7 hours ago, Golfnutgalen said:

 

The course was wet to be fair, but the field only averaged 260 back then, Tiger was 3rd at 284, Phil 270, Payne 255. They averaged 310 this year. Different ballgame for sure. 

And yet we had drama on the back 9 and came down to the last putt to determine if we had a winner or if we were going to get a playoff. That’s exciting tv to watch 

[Titleist99]

3 hours ago, GoGoErky said:

And yet we had drama on the back 9 and came down to the last putt to determine if we had a winner or if we were going to get a playoff. That’s exciting tv to watch 

Which is what we had in 2024. But that's not good enough for some because they were not hitting four irons int greens.  🤣🤣

[clevited]

11 hours ago, StoutKing said:

99,

 

I think we get get this thread to 500 pages with this injection of excitement.  Props to us, ha ha.  

 

Anyway, in golf there is no opposition physically stopping you from achieving your goal.  There is no 6'5" 310 pound dude with 10% body fat who runs a 4.6 40 and benches 225 35 times physically stopping you from achieving your goal.  Who are golfers battling?  The course of course; the architecture.  That's the only real reason the great courses are great. 

 

What did the most prolific golf architect in America Mr. Donald J. Ross say about his beloved #2? 

 

"It is obviously the function of a championship course to present competitors with a variety of problems that will test EVERY TYPE of shot a golfer of championship ability should be qualified to play.  Thus, it should call for long and accurate tee shots, accurate iron play, precise handling of the short game, and finally, consistent putting."

 

He continues, "These abilities should be called for in a proportion that will not permit excellence in any one department of the game to largely offset deficiencies in another."

 

A couple paragraphs later, " I consider the ability to play the longer irons as the supreme test of a great golfer.  That is the ultimate test of a golfers skill.  A golfer who is playing his long irons well will benefit in competitions at Number Two."

 

What we saw yesterday were driver wedge / sand wedge on 500+ par fours.  That doesn't sound like testing every shot, nor was it a test of the long irons.  

 

You said: Point #2......The only thing more boring than wedge every hole is four irons and woods into every hole. If most fans want to watch that the LPGA would be more popular.

 

Can you please point out which par fours were approached with four irons and woods yesterday?  Specifically you said every hole.  It didn't happen every hole.  I don't recall Bryson or Rory approaching a par 4 with a fairway wood second shot.  Correct me if I'm wrong.  Golfers should be battling the course with a diversity in types of par 4s: drivable, drive and pitch, drive and mid iron, drive and long iron and occasionally drive and fairway wood.  In the absence of an opponent physically stopping the golfer we need diversity of shots in proportion to challenge the golfer as Mr. Ross said, not disproportion. 

 

Carry on sir.  I think we can get to 500 pages by Troon.  🙂 Cheers 🙂 🙂 

 

Golf isn't a fair sport though.  Long players rarely had to hit long irons back in the day compared to the average or less than average length player.  You cannot dictate the number of long irons a player hits (or any shot type for that matter) so I push back against the related quotes you posted due to poor logic.  One player may have to hit hardly any long irons (or punch cuts, or what have you) while another will.  Does that player that has to hit hardly any "difficult" shots and wins the trophy lack skill and therefore make their win undeserved?  If we want to go there, then Jack certainly didn't deserve any of his wins, nor did Tiger, nor did any longer than average player.  

 

To me, the player that executes their strategy the best wins.  They use the tools they have (the clubs, the shots) and try not to screw up too much.  One player might have ridiculous short game and or scramble game but not be long off the tee, or perhaps they can't hit a reliable draw that is optimal on certain holes etc.  They might be the most skilled overall, but not win.  They might also not win due to the thing between their ears, but have immense "skill".

 

Golf has been and always will be what I outlined above.   It will never be what guys like you want it to be, or think it used to be.  You want a field full of short knockers and one or two bombers so that you can have your Jack and Tiger experience again.  That isn't going to happen unless they roll back the ball 20%, then you might get your wish for a short time, but only until parity yet again develops over a generation or two.  

Edited June 18 by clevited

[gvogel]

29 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

Which is what we had in 2024. But that's not good enough for some because they were not hitting four irons int greens.  🤣🤣

Fine, the modern game is now: trick up the greens and put the pins in crazy places.  Then: grow plants in the rough that make an escape next to impossible.  Is this a recipe for play at your home course?

[StoutKing]

17 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

Golf isn't a fair sport though.  Long players rarely had to hit long irons back in the day compared to the average or less than average length player.  You cannot dictate the number of long irons a player hits (or any shot type for that matter) so I push back against the related quotes you posted due to poor logic.  One player may have to hit hardly any long irons (or punch cuts, or what have you) while another will.  Does that player that has to hit hardly any "difficult" shots and wins the trophy lack skill and therefore make their win undeserved?  If we want to go there, then Jack certainly didn't deserve any of his wins, nor did Tiger, nor did any longer than average player.  

 

To me, the player that executes their strategy the best wins.  They use the tools they have (the clubs, the shots) and try not to screw up too much.  One player might have ridiculous short game and or scramble game but not be long off the tee, or perhaps they can't hit a reliable draw that is optimal on certain holes etc.  They might be the most skilled overall, but not win.  They might also not win due to the thing between their ears, but have immense "skill".

 

Golf has been and always will be what I outlined above.   It will never be what guys like you want it to be, or think it used to be.  You want a field full of short knockers and one or two bombers so that you can have your Jack and Tiger experience again.  That isn't going to happen unless they roll back the ball 20%, then you might get your wish for a short time, but only until parity yet again develops over a generation or two.  

I get your opinion.  Can you go through Ross's quotes one by one and explain why he is wrong and your are right?  I'm genuinely curious why he doesn't know what he's talking about.  Keep in mind he not only designed over 400 courses but finished top 10 in majors five times, so he knew a little bit about the game.  We can get this thread to 500 by Troon!

[GoGoErky]

27 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

Golf isn't a fair sport though.  Long players rarely had to hit long irons back in the day compared to the average or less than average length player.  You cannot dictate the number of long irons a player hits (or any shot type for that matter) so I push back against the related quotes you posted due to poor logic.  One player may have to hit hardly any long irons (or punch cuts, or what have you) while another will.  Does that player that has to hit hardly any "difficult" shots and wins the trophy lack skill and therefore make their win undeserved?  If we want to go there, then Jack certainly didn't deserve any of his wins, nor did Tiger, nor did any longer than average player.  

 

To me, the player that executes their strategy the best wins.  They use the tools they have (the clubs, the shots) and try not to screw up too much.  One player might have ridiculous short game and or scramble game but not be long off the tee, or perhaps they can't hit a reliable draw that is optimal on certain holes etc.  They might be the most skilled overall, but not win.  They might also not win due to the thing between their ears, but have immense "skill".

 

Golf has been and always will be what I outlined above.   It will never be what guys like you want it to be, or think it used to be.  You want a field full of short knockers and one or two bombers so that you can have your Jack and Tiger experience again.  That isn't going to happen unless they roll back the ball 20%, then you might get your wish for a short time, but only until parity yet again develops over a generation or two.  

Seems pretty simple. Not simile why are confused over this. Happens every round everywhere. The person who puts together the better round using their clubs wins friendly matches, shoots the lower score in a group. 

the bold is really what it’s all about. We have multiple guys that can do those things now, not a bad thing. Just like we have more guys that can reach 100mph on their fastballs than before. Other than more injuries it’s not a bad thing.

 

Same with the amount of runners who are near the world record on the 100m. Makes for enetertaining events 

Edited June 18 by GoGoErky

[smashdn]

14 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

 The reason one doesn't exist is the materials to make such a ball and make it durable don't exist. 

 

How do you know?

[Titleist99]

26 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

Golf isn't a fair sport though.  Long players rarely had to hit long irons back in the day compared to the average or less than average length player.  You cannot dictate the number of long irons a player hits (or any shot type for that matter) so I push back against the related quotes you posted due to poor logic.  One player may have to hit hardly any long irons (or punch cuts, or what have you) while another will.  Does that player that has to hit hardly any "difficult" shots and wins the trophy lack skill and therefore make their win undeserved?  If we want to go there, then Jack certainly didn't deserve any of his wins, nor did Tiger, nor did any longer than average player.  

 

To me, the player that executes their strategy the best wins.  They use the tools they have (the clubs, the shots) and try not to screw up too much.  One player might have ridiculous short game and or scramble game but not be long off the tee, or perhaps they can't hit a reliable draw that is optimal on certain holes etc.  They might be the most skilled overall, but not win.  They might also not win due to the thing between their ears, but have immense "skill".

 

Golf has been and always will be what I outlined above.   It will never be what guys like you want it to be, or think it used to be.  You want a field full of short knockers and one or two bombers so that you can have your Jack and Tiger experience again.  That isn't going to happen unless they roll back the ball 20%, then you might get your wish for a short time, but only until parity yet again develops over a generation or two.  

100%.   When the rollback occurs, the same rebels will be shouting to the rooftop......

 

"Pros are hitting too many eight irons into par4s"

[Titleist99]

36 minutes ago, gvogel said:

Fine, the modern game is now: trick up the greens and put the pins in crazy places.  Then: grow plants in the rough that make an escape next to impossible.  Is this a recipe for play at your home course?

No, my home course is similar to the TPC Highland where the Travelers tournament is being held next week. 6800 yards traditional tree lined. Short yardage, yet not obsolete, go figure. 🙂

 

*By the way, just like most golf courses across America.

Edited June 18 by Titleist99

[Titleist99]

Three hundred yard drives are mighty impressive, but it always comes down to who makes the most three footers..... 😎

[clevited]

1 hour ago, StoutKing said:

I get your opinion.  Can you go through Ross's quotes one by one and explain why he is wrong and your are right?  I'm genuinely curious why he doesn't know what he's talking about.  Keep in mind he not only designed over 400 courses but finished top 10 in majors five times, so he knew a little bit about the game.  We can get this thread to 500 by Troon!

 

 

 

 

 

"It is obviously the function of a championship course to present competitors with a variety of problems that will test EVERY TYPE of shot a golfer of championship ability should be qualified to play.  Thus, it should call for long and accurate tee shots, accurate iron play, precise handling of the short game, and finally, consistent putting."

 

-It isn't possible for any golf course to test EVERY TYPE of shot.

 

"These abilities should be called for in a proportion that will not permit excellence in any one department of the game to largely offset deficiencies in another."

 

-It isn't possible for this to happen given the varied skill sets of pro golfers (just look at shots gained).

 

" I consider the ability to play the longer irons as the supreme test of a great golfer.  That is the ultimate test of a golfers skill.  A golfer who is playing his long irons well will benefit in competitions at Number Two."

 

-This is a very naive thing for him to say, much like the other two quotes.  Long players won't have to hit long irons, or at the very least, the same "long iron" as everyone else on that hole.  A 4i is arguably harder to hit than a 6i for instance.  I reject also that long irons are the ultimate test of a golfers skill.  The ultimate test is the tournament itself and executing ones strategy better than everyone else, while under the pressure that a major presses upon a player.

 

Regarding his 400 courses designed and his professional career...his above statements show me that he is not knowledgeable about the sport beyond his own naive view of it.  He has illogical takes on the sport that show, at least in part, why he never won a major.

 

 

Edited June 18 by clevited

[Golfnutgalen]

5 hours ago, GoGoErky said:

And yet we had drama on the back 9 and came down to the last putt to determine if we had a winner or if we were going to get a playoff. That’s exciting tv to watch 

 

I'm not disagreeing.

 

I watched most of the video, Tiger back then was very similar to Rory, constantly hitting mid to short irons over the back of greens and missed 2 short putts. Johnny Miller said if he can figure out his short irons he would dominate. Tiger would go on to win 8 of the next 10 events to prove his point. Woods had "only" won 8 times in his career up to that US Open, Phil 13.

 

Payne and Phil made every putt in that final round through 16. Then Phil finally missed on 17 to open the door. What could have been....but I can't be too upset considering Paynes tragic passing a few months later. 

 

Vijay was right there too and surprisingly putted well, at least according to traditional stats. 

 

TW had to hit a 4 iron into the longest par 4 of the course from 210 on the 489 yard 16th. Payne and Phil were about 225 out. Again, super wet conditions so no roll off their tee shots.

[ThinkingPlus]

1 hour ago, smashdn said:

 

How do you know?

1) Let's just talk cover material since the elastomeric cores are primarily spin vs. speed distributors. There is currently a niche nostalgia market for a durable balata like performing ball. No such ball exists.

 

2) The golf ball OEMs could use a spinnier cover material because it would provide a larger optimization envelope within which they could design balls. Classic example would be using the spinnier cover with a marshmallow core to provide the soft feel crowd with a tour caliber ball distance and spin ball. Pretty big market for that ball. No such ball exists.

 

3) The ruling bodies rollback schemes very likely would have included a spinnier ball if one could have been produced. The media would have all over that, but...crickets. Once again the spinnier cover material doesn't exist because no spinnier balls exist.

 

Could a spinnier material be developed that matched balata, but was durable? Maybe, but softness (compliance) is largely what made balata so spinny. That same softness contributes to the lack of durability. It feels like unicorn territory to me.

[smashdn]

Cover material is but one variable in the spin equation.  Arguably, it is most responsible for greenside spin and with less than full shots but the core and intermediate layer interaction is more responsible for full swing spin generation.

 

Are we saying it doesn't exist because there isn't a cover material other than urethane that spins (with shorter clubs) and is durable without thinking about the intermediate layers?  Those layers where the OEM's are trying their darndest to mitigate spin on full shots, especially driver.

 

If we are talking about the potential to add spin back into the equation to promote ball striking skill, why look at the cover at all?  Why not engineer back in full shot spin properties?

[ThinkingPlus]

6 minutes ago, smashdn said:

Cover material is but one variable in the spin equation.  Arguably, it is most responsible for greenside spin and with less than full shots but the core and intermediate layer interaction is more responsible for full swing spin generation.

 

Are we saying it doesn't exist because there isn't a cover material other than urethane that spins (with shorter clubs) and is durable without thinking about the intermediate layers?  Those layers where the OEM's are trying their darndest to mitigate spin on full shots, especially driver.

 

If we are talking about the potential to add spin back into the equation to promote ball striking skill, why look at the cover at all?  Why not engineer back in full shot spin properties?

The core(s) dampen spin vs. speed. The cover pretty much determines the max spin you start with. The dimples and MOI (slightly) determine spin retention down range.

 

If you mess with core materials or impose some kind of minimum spin in the ball specification you have edged over into full blown ball design. The OEMs pushback would have been considerable and the likelihood of unintended consequences very high. The ruling bodies, uncharacteristically, realized to stay away from spin related specifications. 

[Simpsonia]

21 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

The core(s) dampen spin vs. speed. The cover pretty much determines the max spin you start with. The dimples and MOI (slightly) determine spin retention down range.

 

If you mess with core materials or impose some kind of minimum spin in the ball specification you have edged over into full blown ball design. The OEMs pushback would have been considerable and the likelihood of unintended consequences very high. The ruling bodies, uncharacteristically, realized to stay away from spin related specifications. 

 

The Kirkland ball kind of epitomizes this. It has a Urethane cover with a mediocre but higher compression core (93), hence its high spin in comparison to a ProV1. However, even then it's only ~7-10% higher spin than the ProV1. To get to balata levels you're talking 40% more spin with the driver (2500 vs 3500), and ~25% more with irons (loft creates spin). Even then, you need a high compression core to maintain the spin with Urethane. Softer cores to reduce distance, also reduce spin. 

 

As you say, cover determines max spin, because it's a simple friction force of the cover interacting and sliding up the club face that generates spin. Just like in with hard vs soft tires in motorsports, softer materials create more friction/grip and thus more spin with a golf ball. However, softer means less durable as we also see in every materials application. Urethane just happens to be a really awesome sweet spot of ability to create spin but retain some level of durability. I'm absolutely sure there exist softer materials they could use, but they'd just have massive durability problems that would make them very difficult to sell. 

Edited June 18 by Simpsonia

[GoGoErky]

1 hour ago, Golfnutgalen said:

 

I'm not disagreeing.

 

I watched most of the video, Tiger back then was very similar to Rory, constantly hitting mid to short irons over the back of greens and missed 2 short putts. Johnny Miller said if he can figure out his short irons he would dominate. Tiger would go on to win 8 of the next 10 events to prove his point. Woods had "only" won 8 times in his career up to that US Open, Phil 13.

 

Payne and Phil made every putt in that final round through 16. Then Phil finally missed on 17 to open the door. What could have been....but I can't be too upset considering Paynes tragic passing a few months later. 

 

Vijay was right there too and surprisingly putted well, at least according to traditional stats. 

 

TW had to hit a 4 iron into the longest par 4 of the course from 210 on the 489 yard 16th. Payne and Phil were about 225 out. Again, super wet conditions so no roll off their tee shots.

And win more current times we had some good drama at the 2015 US Open.

 

Regardless of eras and equipment there is plenty of exciting golf on an almost weekly basis and more than enough events where Sunday finishes present great entertainment down the stretch with volatility on the leaderboard because of how the tournament sets up

the course. 

[clevited]

52 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

The Kirkland ball kind of epitomizes this. It has a Urethane cover with a mediocre but higher compression core (93), hence its high spin in comparison to a ProV1. However, even then it's only ~7-10% higher spin than the ProV1. To get to balata levels you're talking 40% more spin with the driver (2500 vs 3500), and ~25% more with irons (loft creates spin). Even then, you need a high compression core to maintain the spin with Urethane. Softer cores to reduce distance, also reduce spin. 

 

As you say, cover determines max spin, because it's a simple friction force of the cover interacting and sliding up the club face that generates spin. Just like in with hard vs soft tires in motorsports, softer materials create more friction/grip and thus more spin with a golf ball. However, softer means less durable as we also see in every materials application. Urethane just happens to be a really awesome sweet spot of ability to create spin but retain some level of durability. I'm absolutely sure there exist softer materials they could use, but they'd just have massive durability problems that would make them very difficult to sell. 

 

Even then, off of a modern driver, kirklands spin not much more off the face than a prov1.  I am certain the same would be true of a balata ball.  Off of irons, they would spin perhaps 1k more, similar to how kirklands behave.  This is from my own testing, this can vary person to person depending on equipment and how they deliver the club but in general, off a driver, a spinnier ball won't do  much different so it isn't really an option for limiting distance anyway imo.

Edited June 18 by clevited

[Simpsonia]

22 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

Even then, off of a modern driver, kirklands spin not much more off the face than a prov1.  I am certain the same would be true of a balata ball.  Off of irons, they would spin perhaps 1k more, similar to how kirklands behave.  This is from my own testing, this can vary person to person depending on equipment and how they deliver the club but in general, off a driver, a spinnier ball won't do  much different so it isn't really an option for limiting distance anyway imo.

 

Yeah, I mentioned this before. Even if you could somehow amp up driver spin on the ball, pros are just gonna optimize their equipment and swings to counteract that. They'll hit more up on the ball and higher on the face and keep spinning it at ~2400. Wedges would suffer most since it will be difficult to not rip things back (like with balata), but drivers will remain the same. 

Edited June 18 by Simpsonia

[smashdn]

7 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

Yeah, I mentioned this before. Even if you could somehow amp up driver spin on the ball, pros are just gonna optimize their equipment and swings to counteract that. They'll hit more up on the ball and higher on the face and keep spinning it at ~2400.

 

Wouldn't that come at the risk of either lost distance or dispersion or both?

 

(I am not for adding spin back to the ball as a part of the rollback, I just think it an interesting topic to discuss in conjunction with the rollback discussion.  A sort of "what if" discussion to be had.)

[DocBrown3887]

On 6/17/2024 at 3:12 PM, ThinkingPlus said:

Why do you care how a ball feels?

 

What? I played balatas and other softer balls through high school because I liked the soft feel around the greens. I had better control over feel on chips and putts. People DONT pick golf balls for feel?!? 

[munichop]

The early versions of solid balls like the precept extra spin and Spaulding tour edition are what I was thinking would be achievable for a rollback. The earliest solid balls designed for tour players tried to get the spin numbers the old balata balls had. Maybe reverse engineering on those earlier versions would be a good starting point.

the older dimple patterns were also less efficient so they could be brought back for a rollback ball.

 

[ThinkingPlus]

30 minutes ago, DocBrown3887 said:

 

What? I played balatas and other softer balls through high school because I liked the soft feel around the greens. I had better control over feel on chips and putts. People DONT pick golf balls for feel?!? 

I don't for sure. I pick balls based on performance. I don't care how it feels. By the time I feel anything, the shot is over with.

[maamold]

11 hours ago, clevited said:

Golf isn't a fair sport though. 

...Says the people who don't think it's fair that the USGA/RA are changing some of the equipment tests and rules.
 

[clevited]

24 minutes ago, maamold said:

...Says the people who don't think it's fair that the USGA/RA are changing some of the equipment tests and rules.
 

 

Who says that?  Most of us just think it is completely unnecessary, doesn't solve the "problem" anyway, and is just plain dumb.

Edited June 19 by clevited