"Bifurcation is the imperfect answer we're looking for, and 2013 might be the year we decide."
Jerry Tarde's editor's letter in the February Golf Digest features an image of Paul Runyan displaying an anchoring technique in October 1966, which gives some context to Tarde's provocative view that the governing bodies may be setting us up for a fight over distance.
Or a backdoor rollback.
In the meantime, we will watch as everyday golfers react to the USGA and R&A's harder line. In an ongoing survey, almost 40 percent of respondents are indicating that golfers who use the anchored method will continue putting that way past the 2016 rules change, and almost half favor a different set of rules for amateurs than for pros. We saw this ambivalence in a statement from the PGA of America that uncharacteristically pushed back and questioned how the ban would affect enjoyment and growth of golf. Even purists like Tom Watson have "mixed emotions," hinting that bifurcation--two sets of rules--might be acceptable.
I don't hit it far enough to want my ball rolled back, and my pals who anchor say they'll give up the game before giving up the long putter. Bifurcation is the imperfect answer we're looking for, and 2013 might be the year we decide.
The Golf Club Atlas gang has begun a discussion on the column worth checking out.
Friday, January 11, 2013 at 12:59 AM
Reader Comments (32)
when the small ball went away in the open, it died a natural death in golf shops as most golfers wanted to play the same stuff as the big boys
What you might see is the groove approach applied to putters--ban it for tour players and players in USGA championships as of 2016, with the ban for the mens club championship kikcking in a few years later. everybody buys a new putter at some point (except for the kooks) and this would allow people to switch as they decide to do so
My problem with bifurcation is where do you draw the line? Club events with scratch markers, college events., State amateurs" Where does the line get drawn as to when the ball has to change?
Imagine the US Amateur being played at 6800 yards with the old ball and the US Open being played at the same yardage with the "new" ball.
The average club or public course golfer does not play a game remotely close to championship level or professional-level golf - and should not be expected to. They are recreational golfers. The USGA and R&A and the PGA Tour can implement whatever rules they wish when a player competes in their events. But, why not let the game grow and the average player enjoy it at the level in which they participate by allowing some bifurcation? What would it really hurt? The game ain't growing in its current state. It is long past the time the Blue Blazers realized how many good changes there have been and get on with it. If it weren’t for change we would all still be playing hickories! The problem is a bunch of amateurs in Blue Blazers think they “OWN” the rules.
If you want to "lengthen" courses for the pros, "slow down" the courses. A little longer grass in the fairways and rough, traps that are actually penal, put rough or danger at the 300+ yard mark in some of the fairways to force the pros to make the decision on the tee. If they can fly the danger, great!
But stop lengthening courses for the 1/2% of golfers! The rest of us pay the price, literally and figuratively. If the pros can drive the 400 yard par four, good for them. Then when I play the same hole, and I am hitting driver and 5-iron, I can still appreciate how good they play; I don't need to hit driver and 3-wood to have any better appreciation of their abilities.
I also have to agree with metro 18...where do you draw the line? I have a brother who is lucky to break 100 on a good day...but he can mash a drive 330+ yards (of course he is 6'4, 230 lbs). Elite amateur are as long, if not longer on average as the pro's...and even many single digit players can hang with tour pro's as far as distance. What is the main rationale for "rolling back" the ball? If it is to keep the length of course from getting further out of hand, a restriction on just pro's will do nothing to help that if elite amateurs are still being accouted for in course design.
I cant believe that its not possible to have a ball that does the opposite.
I still think however that driving has become too easy for good players because of 460 heads.Dont know how you change that though because club golfers wont want to give them up-nor should they-so we either put up with the situation as is or bifurcate.
They do not make rules FOR those tours
Now, same effect would be as mentioned before. The Open, US Open Championships
could say this is the ball/club rules (rolled back)
Trying to tell the Tours to use different equipment than is sold to the public
jis just saying you want to take money out of their hands with endorsements and equipment support
* Disparity of Performances over past players (as mentioned above)
* Creates millions of non-conforming "legacy" equipment / balls that needs to be dealt with
* Makes ams "worse" than before, creating ill will
B) "Freeze"
* All current equipment legal.
* Future distance gains can clearly be attributed to non equipment issues
Equipment improvements will continue.
Equipment made to help club golfers is helping elites 10 times more.
There is something wrong somewhere.
Fred Funk said it best, bring back the golf balls of 2002. The USGA balked on "their Statement of Principles" released in 2002. Look at the PGA Tour distance stats of 2002, and compare them to 2003, then ask the USGA where were they.
@BrianS
The "freeze" was suppose to take place in 2002, wasn't it?
Without a ball roll back, over the long term I'll be out thousands of dollars in the form of increased green fees (as courses get longer and longer) and remodeling costs. Those costs are certainly passed along to golfers. Also, because it takes more time to play these longer courses, the game is dying.
Slowing down the course through overwatering and higher rough makes the game boring. If a ball roll back is done correctly, the only thing that amatuers with swing speeds under 110 will notice is that the bombers are 20 yards in front of them instead of 50.
For those opposed to a roll back, was the game really that much easier in 2001?
2) Also agree that failure to enforce the current freeze is the heart of the problem.
If the ruling bodies can't be counted on to enforce a new "freeze", then how can we depend on them to enforce the "roll back" ?
For example: My buddy is the coach of a NCAA Div. II golf team...no plus handicaps there, but solid players in the 1-5 index range. His response concerning how far all of those kids hit it: "The 7-iron is dead. There is no more middle or long iron play. Other than long par 3s, almost every hole the kids play is either Driver or 3-Wood and a wedge. The game looks nothing like it used to."
I'm with JW above...if we don't stop it, the cost and effort to keep up with equipment will get out of hand. That said, even if the ball is rolled back, how do we prevent manufacturers from building ever better drivers that make the ball go further?
JJ-spot on!
Digs-try the Penta.
the league i play it doesn't matter what kind of ball striker you are when you smash driver and then have 9 iron even though you're playing from the next holes fairway.
do the game a favor and roll back drivers to 400cc and slow the ball down for higher clubhead speeds while lower compression rates will keep the same ball speeds. won't affect the slow swing speeds as much as the long hitter, but will also put more emphasis on ball striking and accuracy