Is it Time To “Change the frigging golf ball”?

Any other week Jack Nicklaus reiterating his position that the golf ball needs to be rolled back would barely be worth a mention. But this is Masters week and part of the tradition unlike any other is that basically anything said at an Augusta press conference is newsworthy…even when the guy making the news has been saying the same thing for years.

Certainly this isn’t the first time Mr. Nicklaus has suggested limiting the golf ball. While there’s some irony in the fact that the man whose name is on one of the longest golf balls we’ve tested is an apparent proponent of limiting distance, his message has been nothing but consistent.

The modern golf ball flies too far.

Really? For whom?

Why Does the Ball Need to Be Limited?

The argument for a reduced distance ball is simple…possibly overly-simplistic. Tour Professionals are hitting the ball far…arguably too far.

The USGA has already capped the driver (or at least narrowed the window for innovation), but the reality is that golfers are bigger and stronger than ever.

While it could open the door for John Daly’s triumphant return to prominence, I doubt even the perpetually overreaching USGA believes it can put a limit on physical strength.

Can you do more than 30 push-ups? Plank for more than 2 minutes?

Rory McIlroy just got DQ’d for non-conforming fitness.

All other options either previously addressed or completely off the table, is it really time to consider rolling the golf ball back to the pre-innovation era?

Limits Already Exist

Often lost in the discussion is the fact that the USGA already limits the ball. In fact, before a ball is declared conforming it has to past 3 separate tests:

• Overall Distance And Symmetry Test Procedure
• Initial Velocity Test Procedure
• Weight And Size Test Procedures

Rules already exist to prevent manufacturers from juicing the golf ball, and they’re complying. In his Masters presser, Mr. Nicklaus concedes that the ball “has not changed a lot since probably 2005 or 2006”.

If Jack is right and little has actually changed with the ball in 10 years, is the ball really the problem?

Longer Golfers Mean Shorter Courses

As is often the case with golf, the problem, or at least part of it, is money. The real issue is that as professional distance has increased, courses have effectively become shorter.

Ignoring for a moment the fact that nobody is habitually shooting 59, the argument is that for course operators (more accurately course operators who host PGA Tournaments) to keep up with the distance increases, courses need to be lengthened. That takes money, and real estate (which costs even more money), and not every club can afford to make the changes.

I know golf loves its traditional venues, but why can’t we come to terms with the fact that not every course can afford to host a PGA Tournament. Doesn’t that make more sense that limiting the ball and by extension, the game, for everyone?

Augusta can afford to add length. The borderline goat pasture just down the road from your place…not so much, but then again, does it really need to?

Because the professional game is longer than ever, we need to consider reducing distance for everyone?

Does that make sense? I don’t think so.

The Obvious Solution

The solution, or at least the most obvious solution du jour is to roll back the ball, and effectively re-limit how far it can go.

While we’re at it, let’s future-proof the sport entirely. Let’s further limit COR and cap shaft length at 42 inches

Let’s rethink the golf bag for +/- 14 million golfers because some PGA Tour Pros are longer than some courses were designed to handle.

C’mon, I know you’re with me on this.

It’s Not that Simple

One of several problems with obvious solutions is that they’re often not as simple as they sound.

John Paul Newport looked into the ball issue for the Wall Street Journal three years ago.

In talking with golf ball experts, including Dean Snell, what he learned was that dialing back the ball to limit driver distance could have unforeseen implications.

In the example given by Snell, a ball that travels 25 yards shorter off the tee (due to aerodynamic/dimple changes), could prove to be 40 or 50 yards shorter with a 5-iron. How’s that for a gapping issue?

Essentially manufacturers would need to start over, they may not get it perfectly right out of the gate, and just for good measure, starting over could disrupt the competitive balance within the ball market.

Right now Titleist is the undisputed leader in the golf ball category. If everybody was forced to go back to the drawing board, it’s certainly possible a new leader could emerge.

It’s hard to imagine a world where Titleist isn’t the #1 Ball in Golf, but if the rules were to change, I suppose you never know.

For manufacturers a shorter ball is both a potential opportunity and a nightmare. For the average golfer it’s just unnecessary.

Is this the USGA’s Problem to Solve?

It’s also fair to consider whether or not the USGA has any business even considering the issue at all. Reasonable estimates put the percentage of professional golfers at well less than 1% of the total golfing population.

Although it’s certainly been the USGA’s trend of late, is it reasonable for the sport’s governing body to continuously place limits on the professional game to the detriment of the other 99% of us.

Talk about overreaching.

COR/CT limits. The groove rule. The anchoring ban. And for the sake of illustrating the absurdity of all of it all, I suppose we could toss in the new regulations against posting solo rounds for handicapping purposes. Grow the game, but make sure everybody knows who’s in control.

What benefit has any of this had for the amateur game? It’s a net negative, but hey…why let a little bit of common sense get in the way of the integrity of the game and whatnot.

Ask yourself this; how many amateurs actually hit the ball too far? How many are being forced to the tips, not because of absurd egos, but because the golf courses simply cannot contain the prodigious length of the modern amateur golfer? For an obscenely high majority of golfers and golf courses, the ball is not a concern.

New ball regulations should be a non-starter at the amateur and recreational level, and I would hope that any new rules that take distance away from the average golfer might finally kick the door open to majority revolt against the USGA – and rightfully so.

The never-on-the-table alternative is bifurcation. It’s a really long four letter word as far as the USGA is concerned, but if we’re going to seriously talk about changing the ball, we need to seriously talk about having two sets of rules because the perceived problems with pro equipment don’t even register at the amateur level.

Either get serious about having two sets of rules, or leave the friggin ball alone.