Analysis And Poll: "Optics, pace of play real issues behind new 'green-reading' review"

I penned a Golfweek.com take on the USGA/R&A Statement today regarding green reading books.

This is a topic we've been hearing rumblings about for about a month now, though I wasn't sure the governing bodies were serious. Today's statement suggests they are very concerned about the impact these have on skill, something confirmed by the USGA's Mike Davis when I spoke to him at The Masters.

My take is a bit different in that I could care less what a player looks at while on the greens as long as he gets his putt struck in under 45 seconds. And as I lay out in the column, this is probably the ultimate reason the issue has arisen, but green speed is certainly another.

So what is motivating this possible crackdown? Your votes are appreciated!

What do you think is the primary motivation for possibly banning green reading books?

De-skilling of putting

Optics--it just looks bad

Pace of play

 

pollcode.com free polls

USGA, R&A Are Going After...Green Reading Books

I'm working on some more extensive thoughts with quotes from the USGA's Mike Davis, but in the meantime, this should get some fun discussion going! #ABTB (Anything But The Ball)

Joint Statement Regarding Green-Reading Materials

May 1, 2017

The R&A and the USGA believe that a player's ability to read greens is an essential part of the skill of putting. Rule 14-3 limits the use of equipment and devices that might assist a player in their play, based on the principle that golf is a challenging game in which success should depend on the judgement, skills and abilities of the player. We are concerned about the rapid development of increasingly detailed materials that players are using to help with reading greens during a round. We are reviewing the use of these materials to assess whether any actions need to be taken to protect this important part of the game. We expect to address this matter further in the coming months.

Lexi Decision: Player Judgement May Supersede High Def Replays; Golf Gets Another Task Force!

Well, you didn't quite get your wish(es). But golf has a new task force working group. Hooray for Hollywood!

So let's review. In the wake of Chapter 32 of Television-Fueled Rules Controversies, we all pretty much agree that golf does not need at home-officiating or scorecard penalties assessed at a later time (but never after the final round).

Your votes:

For the 46 who voted for reasonable judgement, ding ding, you win!

However, in theory, maybe, quite possibly, I think, should the player's word supersede that of the video evidence going forward, then this should eliminate retroactive penalties for signing an incorrect scorecard. Sorry Dustin, Anna and Lexi, you were ahead of your time. You're still penalized.

At-home officials appear to be neutralized by today's Decision, but not eliminated from wreaking havoc. However, with social media's ability to team up against a player using video evidence, a case could be made that we will still have player demonized by video evidence. So good luck, Lance, Tommy, Tom R, Loomy, Brandt and the other producers who have to sort out what to show and what not to show.

Here's the press release:

New Rules of Golf Decision Limits Use of Video Review
USGA and The R&A Prioritize Working Group to Assess Role of Video 
in Applying Golf’s Rules

FAR HILLS, N.J., USA AND ST. ANDREWS, SCOTLAND (April 25, 2017) -  The USGA and The R&A have issued a new Decision on the Rules of Golf to limit the use of video evidence in the game, effective immediately.

A Decision as we are trying to get rid of Decisions. Kinky!

The two organizations have also established a working group of LPGA, PGA Tour, PGA European Tour, Ladies European Tour and PGA of America representatives to immediately begin a comprehensive review of broader video issues, including viewer call-ins, which arise in televised competitions.

More meetings!

New Decision 34-3/10 implements two standards for Rules committees to limit the use of video: 1) when video reveals evidence that could not reasonably be seen with the “naked eye,” and 2) when players use their “reasonable judgment” to determine a specific location when applying the Rules. The full language of the Decision can be found here.

Happy reading. Hope you have a law degree.

Instead, the USGA's Thomas Pagel explained it better to Golf World's Jaime Diaz:

“We are trying to make sure that players that are on television are not held to a higher standard than others playing the game,” said Thomas Pagel, the USGA’s senior director of rules.

“Television evidence can reveal facts that as a human being you could not reasonably have known in the playing of the game. A player could do everything he or she could to get it right, but video evidence could still show that they got it a little wrong. And the only reason we can know they got it a little wrong is because we’ve been able to slow down, pause, rewind, replay, all the things that the player on the golf course doesn’t have the advantage of doing.”

This will appease those of us who see the Lexi Thompson situation fitting here, but will not satisfy those who believe she was up to something nefarious (concluded after watching the zoomed in, slowed down replay many times...the next day).

Though as Beth Ann Nichols notes here for Golfweek, it's also not clear if Lexi's situation would have ended differently given today's news, but it seems fairly obvious that the Johnson and Nordqvist boondoggles would be avoided going forward.)

Back to the press release:

The first standard states, “the use of video technology can make it possible to identify things that could not be seen with the naked eye.” An example includes a player who unknowingly touches a few grains of sand in taking a backswing with a club in a bunker when making a stroke.

Anna!

If the committee concludes that such facts could not reasonably have been seen with the naked eye and the player was not otherwise aware of the potential breach, the player will be deemed not to have breached the Rules, even when video technology shows otherwise. This is an extension of the provision on ball-at-rest-moved cases, which was introduced in 2014.

The second standard applies when a player determines a spot, point, position, line, area, distance or other location in applying the Rules, and recognizes that a player should not be held to the degree of precision that can sometimes be provided by video technology. Examples include determining the nearest point of relief or replacing a lifted ball.

So long as the player does what can reasonably be expected under the circumstances to make an accurate determination, the player’s reasonable judgment will be accepted, even if later shown to be inaccurate by the use of video evidence.

Both of these standards have been extensively discussed as part of the Rules modernization initiative.  The USGA and The R&A have decided to enact this Decision immediately because of the many difficult issues arising from video review in televised golf.

Fascinating that Lexi's situation forced action, not the two 2016 incidents at USGA events which now might turn out differently under today's Decision.

The standards in the Decision do not change any of the current requirements in the Rules, as the player must still act with care, report all known breaches of the Rules and try to do what is reasonably expected in making an accurate determination when applying the Rules.

Right, right, right, now let's get to the golf!

Video-related topics that require a deeper evaluation by the working group include the use of information from sources other than participants such as phone calls, email or social media, and the application of penalties after a score card has been returned.

But first, we have to decide if we are meeting at Sea Island, Pinehurst, Pebble or Bandon to hash this call-in stuff? Maybe Sand Valley? It's on the way to Erin Hills! Sort of.

Here are the harrumphs...including this endorsement from the LPGA Tour.

USGA Executive Director/CEO Mike Davis said, “This important first step provides officials with tools that can have a direct and positive impact on the game. We recognize there is more work to be done. Advancements in video technology are enhancing the viewing experience for fans, but can also significantly affect the competition. We need to balance those advances with what is fair for all players when applying the Rules.”

Martin Slumbers, Chief Executive of The R&A, said, “We have been considering the impact of video review on the game and feel it is important to introduce a Decision to give greater clarity in this area. Golf has always been a game of integrity and we want to ensure that the emphasis remains as much as possible on the reasonable judgment of the player rather than on what video technology can show.”

The USGA and The R&A will consider additional modifications recommended by the working group for implementation in advance of Jan. 1, 2019, when the new code resulting from the collaborative work to modernize golf’s Rules takes effect.

The proposed Rules are now definitely taking effect January 1, 2019?

Maybe with the speed of this helpful Decision perhaps it's time to discuss moving the implementation date up?

Decisions, decisions.

Lexi Fallout: Golf's Five Families Convene At Augusta...

"How did things ever get so far?"

"This Lexi business is going to destroy us for years go come."

I'm paraphrasing of course, but it's fun to imagine the professional tours--which let their players play slow, mark their golf balls constantly (unless it's a backboard for a playing partners)--whining about the Rules of Golf not having addressed issues related to HD and DVR's.

But as Jaime Diaz reported in Golf World, the Corleonie's, Barzini's and Tattaglia's of golf got together to bark at each other about Lexi Thompson's penalty at the ANA Inspiration.

There were intense exchanges in which tour leaders, worried about the perception of their products, argued that rules changes were needed posthaste to stop situations that fans and even players found unfair and nonsensical. The most aggrieved party was the LPGA, and its commissioner Mike Whan, who had publicly called the Thompson ruling “embarrassing.”

“I understand Mike’s perspective,” USGA executive director Mike Davis said. “This was hard on Lexi Thompson, and hard on Mike Whan. But it was not bad for the game, because this is exactly the kind of dialogue that good change comes out of.”

Something tells me that did not give Commissioner Whan a warm, fuzzy feeling.

And this is why we still have cause for concern, just as we did in the days after the Lexi situation.

Golf’s leaders hope that the public will come to regard the rules as better reflections of common sense and fairness. But ultimately, it’s unavoidable that they will be applied on a case-by-case basis.

In Thompson’s case, even under a new standard of intent and reasonable judgment, it’s not clear that she would have not been penalized. As the video shows, Thompson missed replacing on the correct spot by about half a ball. Half a ball doesn’t seem like a lot, but especially on a short putt, it constitutes a pretty bad mark.

Closed circuit cameras caught the meeting:

Video And Poll: The Variable Distance Ball

In the coming months I'm going to start rolling out "Eye On Design" videos focusing on various design elements in golf that either interest me or need to be reconsidered. While it's not sexy to kick off with the "variable distance" ball topic, we might as well try to wrap our heads around what I anticipate will be a lively debate centered around golf course design.

To set this complicated topic up, here are my thoughts presented in digital video form. I flesh a few more thoughts out to (hopefully) better inform your votes...

For us technophobic, distance RIPer's, things have come a long way over the last decade. Just look at your reaction to the WGC Dell Match Play last week where we saw epic driving distances on fairways playing at a nice, normal firmness.

A consensus of serious golfers see that distance increases for elite players have altered the brilliance and safety of our best-designed courses. This combination of improved technology, blatant outsmarting by manufacturers and a host of other elements like Trackman and instruction, have forced the governing bodies to defend expensive and offensive alterations to works of art.

No other sport pats itself on the back more than golf for upholding its traditions and integrity. Yet no the other sport has sold its soul to protect a relationship between participation and the equipment professionals play. A relationship, which I might add, will continue even after a bifurcation of the rules.

Fast forward 22 years and the amazing synergy of athleticism, fitting, instruction and technology has produced super-human driving distances for decent golfers on up to the best. No other sport on the planet has tolerated such a dramatic change in short time, so should we see 10% taken off the modern driving distance average of an elite golfer--at certain courses and events--the sky will not fall. The players who use such a ball would restore the strategy and intrigue of most golf courses built before 1995. (That was the year, not coincidentally, when things started to change.)

Several solutions that do not fundamentally alter the sport have been offered endlessly. They've also been resisted even as the game has not grown during a technology boom that has seen golfers offered the best made and engineered equipment in the game's history. Solutions such as reducing the size of the driver head for professionals and tournament-specific golf balls have not been welcomed or even tried.

The growing sense that a first step solution is on the way arrived when the USGA’s Mike Davis suggested at the recent Innovation Symposium that a “variable distance” ball could be an alternative for select courses and select social situations.

From Mike Stachura’s Golf World report, quoting Davis:

“We don’t foresee any need to do a mandatory rollback of distance. We just don’t see it. But that’s different than saying if somebody comes to us and says I want an experience that doesn’t take as long or use as much land, can we allow for equipment to do that?”

As we know, the proposed rules of golf re-write emphasizes speeding up the game and everyone knows adding new back tees has never helped on this front. For the first time, elite golfers are suggesting they see the correlation between distance and new tees, but are also tired of walking back to such tees on golf courses where the flow of the round is fundamentally altered. 

Beyond the pace and silliness of it all, all indications suggest the USGA and R&A have also developed ways for the handicap system to address a variable distance ball that could be used in select circumstances.

Perhaps it's a club championship and is employed in lieu of extra rough or greens Stimping 13 feet. Or it's an invitational tournament played from tees other than the back. Or maybe there are golf courses experiencing pace of safety issues that will require golfers use such a ball?

On the social side, I expect the case to be made for golfers of different levels playing the same tees thanks to the variable distance ball,  Since Davis’s remarks, I have been surprised how many golfers have told me this would make their Saturday foursomes a more cohesive affair, with everyone playing the same tees and the short hitters not frightened by getting fewer shots from a scratch golfer using a shorter flying ball.

Most of all, such a ball on certain courses would return certain skills (hitting a long iron approach?) and end decades of pretending golf does not have an integrity problem.

I point all of this out because Davis’s remarks were no accident. Whether anyone likes it or not, this ball is coming. The variable ball will not be forced, just another way to play the game. The British ball did not break the sport and neither will this option. Because that's all it is, an option. Given that The Masters arrives next week featuring long fairway grain mown toward the tee to prevent roll, I believe the variable distance ball will again be on the minds of all watching.

With that in mind, your votes, please!

Question 1:

Is golf ready to add a variable distance ball?

Yes, it's time

No, it'll never be used

Maybe, depends on the rollout, quality

 

pollcode.com free polls

Question 2:

Should The Masters adopt a variable distance ball instead of adding more length to the course?

Yes

No

 

pollcode.com free polls

Trumped! R&A Welcomes Muirfield Back Years Before The Club Admits A Woman Member

Let's savor the comedic component of Muirfield joining the new century. After all, they re-voted to finally change their membership policies, reports Martin Dempster.

That the R&A's Martin Slumbers welcomed their rivals back into The Open rota the moment a policy was changed and well before candidates from the other gender were even considered for membership, speaks to one thing and one thing only: the R&A is happily postponing a return to Trump Turnberry.

Remember, Turnberry last hosted The Open in 2009 and has since undergone a fantastic renovation incorporating former Chief Inspector Architect Peter Dawson's design suggestions. In theory, the spectacular resort should be in line for the next likely open date in 2022.

Muirfield last hosted in 2013 and while a wonderful place for The Open, a 2022 return would be a bit faster than normal for the Honourable Company of Edinburgh Golfers. Especially in light of their resistance to progress and their long standing rivalry with the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St Andrews. To see these two clubs in such a loving embrace, well, it moves me on this Tuesday morning.

Of course, the real comedy comes from knowing it'll be years before we know if Muirfield even admitted a woman. From Alistair Tait's Golfweek.com story:

There is no timetable for women to join the club. In an official statement the club said: “The current waiting list for membership at Muirfield suggests that new candidates for membership, women and men, can expect to wait two to three years, or longer, to become a member of the club.”

The immediacy of the R&A's embrace of their old rivals can very easily be interpreted as an opportunity to postpone a return to Turnberry for another year.

Politics makes strange bedfellows indeed.

Golf Architecture Should Not Get In The Way Of A Stroke-And-Distance (OB) Fix

Thanks to everyone for voting in the rules poll! We a clear winner: stroke and distance still needs to be remedied:

Cara Robinson and I discussed the poll at the end of my Morning Drive segment today and some other positives and negatives from the Rules unveiling.

So what is the OB issue?

I'm guessing it starts with the difficulty of determining "point of entry" when treating OB like we currently treat a lateral hazard. Though in thinking about holes bordered by a boundary, it seems like the option to  re-tee for a ball that went OB or will not be able to be dropped in a playable location would address most situations.

The bigger philosophic issue, according to the USGA's Thomas Pagel during his Morning Drive appearance, involves design impact. Ryan Lavner reports:

One of the biggest hang-ups is differentiating the penalties for a lost ball and a shot that was hit out of bounds. Any option that requires an estimation of the spot where the ball was lost could lead to significant debate about players, and it’s not yet clear how many penalty strokes should be assessed, one or two.

Meanwhile, the Rules maintain that out of bounds is a strategic part of the challenge of playing some holes and that it could be “undermined” if players can hit toward those areas with less concern, such as if they were marked with red stakes.

“We’ve looked at every angle,” Pagel said. “But of all the alternatives we’ve considered, we haven’t found one that is workable for all levels.”

From an architect's perspective, Out-of-Bounds is not as intriguing of a ploy as many think. Because we all know it's not an ideal risk-reward hazard. Ultimately, the risk on OB-lined holes nearly always outweighs reward and we take the safest route.

My hunch is that safety is another part of the issue: would changing the rules make a hole lined with OB to protect homes or a road become less safe?

I also wonder if those involved in the rules discussions keep thinking of elite players playing the Road hole at St. Andrews. If they hit one into the Old Course hotel, where do they tee? If we change this rule after centuries of the Old Course boundaries having played a key role in defending the course, what will happen? (Though I'm fairly certain defined OB is much less than a century old there as players famously used to play off of The Links road to the 18th green).

Scoring wise, a change in stroke and distance would almost assurely lead to a few lower scores in major events by elite players. But I can't think of a scenario on the Old Course where, at psychologically, modified stroke and distance significantly lessens the impact of those boundaries.

I can, however, think of many ways that the golf ball flying way longer than it did 20 years ago lessens the impact, safety and resistance to scoring of the Old Course's hazards.

First Look: New 7th And 8th Holes At Royal Portrush

Thanks to reader PG for catching photographer David Cannon's Tweeted first-look images of the new 7th and 8th holes at Royal Portrush.

The holes were created for The Open Championship's arrival in 2019, allowing for the use of the current 17th and 18th holes as staging.

First views of new 7th and 8th at @royalportrush ready for @TheOpen in 2019 great job by @golfarchitects #martinebert @GettySport #brilliant pic.twitter.com/jCYHH7oNiR

— David Cannon (@Cannonball63) March 1, 2017

New Golf Rules: A Closer Look At Changes Related To Bunkers

I'll leave some of the proposed Rules of Golf changes to the wonks to dissect after they are unveiled, but from an architecture and course setup perspective, I'm fascinated by the change of approach to bunkers.

Here is what is outlined in the proposal:

•    Relaxed restrictions on touching the sand with your hand or club when your ball is in a bunker: You are now prohibited only from touching the sand (1) with your hand or club to test the condition of the bunker or (2) with your club in the area right behind or in front of the ball, in making a practice swing or in making the backswing for your stroke.

We all know this is a response to multiple video replay issues where the club could be seen touching the sand and the player was prosecuted for an inadvertent mistake. No one will miss those days.

•    New unplayable ball relief option: For two penalty strokes, you may take relief outside the bunker by dropping a ball back on a line from the hole through where your ball was at rest in the bunker.

I haven't a clue what this unplayable option does to improve the game other than speed things up on a golf course with quicksand bunkers, so let's ignore that one.

•    Removal of special restrictions on moving loose impediments: There is no longer a penalty if you touch or move loose impediments in a bunker.

"Play it as it lies" is a principle of importance since it was a bedrock of the original rules. Rules, Decisions and other changes in the game have dented the meaning of playing it as it lies in a sport that originally resonated because it was nature-based. So will this new language make bunkers more or less hazardous and more or less maintained.

I'm hoping more hazardous and less maintained.

We all hate rocks in bunkers and what they do to a pretty new wedge. And perhaps with a loose impediment rule the governing bodies are actually applying reverse psychology here by saying to courses you don't need to spend so much time on making bunkers perfect, rock-free sanctuaries for recovery.

Yet I can't help but think that given the freedom to fidget with the playing surface, modern players will continue to see bunkers as a sacred place where all golfers are entitled to a recovery and pristine lie at all times. Or, play it as I want it to lie.

Yuck!

We shall see...

First Look: Proposed Changes To The Rules Of Golf, What Stands Out?

Scheduled for a rollout on Golf Channel's Morning Drive (7 am Wednesday) along with a media teleconference at the same time, the new Rules of Golf will aim to "modernize the Rules and make them easier to understand and apply."

The expedited proposal, going out for public consideration with a January 1, 2019 implementation goal, appears determined to speed up the game and, intentionally or not, bifurcate elite tournament golf and the everyday game.

From the materials I've seen and in discussions with those briefed, here are the highlights of the many "relaxed" rules (where have I heard that term?):

--No more penalties for accidentally moving a ball on the putting green or in searching for a ball

--Golfers may putt without having the flagstick attended or removed. A speed of play, play.

--Repairing spike marks and other damage on the putting green to be allowed. Not a speed of play helper.

--More red hazard lines to include desert areas and no penalty for touching the hazard in such an area, which also includes moving loose impediments.

--In bunkers, no penalty for touching loose impediments or for touching the sand with a hand or club. Still no grounding the club next to the ball or in front of the ball. We'll call this the Anna rule.

--We trust you, we really really trust you rules. This is a video evidence situation again, allowing for "reasonable judgement" when estimating point of entry drops, etc...

--Reduced time for searching for a lost ball from five down to three minutes

--You can keep playing a damaged club during a round. No penalty for an altered club, even if you wrapped it around a tree in a childish hissy-fit.

--Use of distance measuring devices permitted at all times, except by Local Rule (this should be fun for Augusta and the PGA Tour).

--No more caddies lining up players before a shot. This was almost strictly an LPGA Tour problem.

--A new “Maximum Score” form of stroke play, where your score can be capped to a number set by the Committee. In this proposed format you can pick up and move to the next hole when your score "will be at or above the maximum."

--New presentation of how the rules are presented

--New "plain" language in the writing of the rules

So what stands out?

For my money, the positives are various headache situations in everyday tournament golf coming to an end.

The use of rangefinders will be applauded, hailed and declared the key to speeding up the game. Little difference will be seen, but at least we'll be able to put another savior to bed on the pace of play front.

The ability to repair "spike" marks in a sport almost devoid of spikes contradicts the efforts to speed up the sport and appears to be mostly for tour players.

Ready Golf Makes A Difference? The R&A Says So And Plans To Show How

Major League Baseball is threatening to fundamentally change a small but occasionally comical element of its sport in lieu of telling batters to stay in the box, which makes the R&A's gentler push for a speed-up tactic more appealing.

Martin Dempster reports that "ready golf" is going to be implemented at The Amateur's stroke play proceedings this year after other trial runs.

He quotes R&A Chief at Martin Slumbers at length, who also scolds players for not yelling fore in response to Pat Perez beaning a spectator Sunday at Riviera after not yelling fore (the landing area on that hole can't hear or see the tee, but I digress...)

On the topic of ready golf...

“When you get to the professional level, there’s no doubt in my mind that the professionals are role models, and they are fantastic role models for young people. They’re healthy, they’re fit, they’re strong 
and they’ve got unbelievable skill. “But part of that role model is pace of play, and there is no doubt that younger generations take a steer from them. So I think I would just encourage the Tour pros to realise that pace of play is part of them being that role model, and it’s not helpful to growing the amateur game when the youngsters are slowing down.

Interestingly, the R&A has guidelines for proper ready golf.

And at the Irish Close Championship last year, they reported a 45-minute round improvement when ready golf was implemented.

While this doesn't address distance, green speed and the refusal to penalize (where hath you gone Keith Pelley?), ready golf is at least something and the R&A is going to earn huge points for being at the forefront of the slow play issue.

Bonallack: USGA And R&A Ignoring Legends On Distance

John Huggan reports that in comments related to Royal St. George's getting the 2020 Open Championship, R&A Chief Martin Slumbers said he has worked "very carefully" with high-profile critics of the distance explosion that isn't happening.

Except that in a disturbing but not shocking twist, former head R&A man Sir Michael Bonallack says he and other longtime players and leaders with Jack Nicklaus' Captain's Club a

“I am on Jack Nicklaus’ ‘Captains Club,’” said the five-time British Amateur champion. “We meet at Muirfield Village every year. At one of those we had Jack, Arnold Palmer, Gary Player, Bill Campbell, myself, Charlie Mechem from the LPGA, all with huge experience in golf. Jack was talking about the ball. We all agreed it was out of control and going too far. It had to be pegged back. So a letter was composed and sent off to the R&A and the USGA, signed by all of us.

“The only reaction we got was an acknowledgement. But I happened to see a copy of the memo that was passed from David Fay to Peter Dawson. “Have you got this?” it asked. “Please note the average age of those who signed it!” And that was the end of it.

While that was a few years ago and Slumbers may have a different view than his predecessors, no evidence suggests that the wise old guard will be listened to.

Bonallack goes on to recount a conversation with a golf dignitary defending the governing bodies in which he is told that all distance gains are from fitness. Apparently this person isn't watching much PGA Tour Champions golf, where the gains have been largest both off the tee and around waistlines.

SI Roundtable On The Distance Report: "Nothing about this study rings true."

I'm continuing to savor the skepticism aimed at the USGA and R&A's latest distance report suggesting all is stable. A growing group of "truthers"--probably a majority of golf observers--are struggling to believe insignificant changes have occurred since 2003.  Especially when the non-flatbellies are seeing big gains.

This week's SI roundtable includes rebuttals from Ritter, Shipnuck, Bamberger, Sens and Passov, but it's the lengthy answer from longtime tour caddie John Wood that is worth diving into.

Here's a snippet related the role Trackman has played in recent years:

Then, there’s Trackman. The launch monitor leaves nothing to chance. Every driver built for these guys won’t make the lineup unless it shows optimal launch conditions. Launch angle and spin rate and landing angle and ball speed aren’t left to chance or feel anymore, but achieved and optimized scientifically. I could go on and on but, mercifully I won’t. The bottom line is that "study" isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. Maximum drives are significantly longer than they were 10-15 years ago. That’s obvious. And in my opinion, while the R&A, the USGA and the PGA Tour may say they’re keeping a close watch and controlling the distance professionals drive it (and providing statistics and studies to back up their claim), I think they’re probably doing so with a wink and a nod.

Not to always slip back into a baseball analogy, but in the midst of the home run binges of Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, Jose Canseco, Barry Bonds, etc. it’s well known that other players, managers, GM’s and owners had an inkling of what was going on, but it was in their best interest to let things proceed as they were. Why? Because fans loved it. Attendance and ratings soared. So, why would the golf establishment want to restrict or roll back the golf ball? As Greg Maddux once told us, "Chicks" (and fans) "dig the long ball." Simply put, more people will pay to watch DJ power his way around a golf course hitting 360 yard drives than would pay to watch another player plot and strategize their way around shooting the same score.

It's fascinating that with something like Trackman, which has become mainstream well after the Statement, offers an opening to admit a discussion must be had. And yet, they pass...