Planning to avoid a balls-up
Why rolling back the ball needs more thought than a load of angry men and a Twitter following.
Amongst the many things for which 2020 will be remembered, for those of us in the UK, the year marked the end of a fraught and polarising departure from the European Union. I have no interest in sharing my own political leanings with you here, but the one thing which seems to have now been universally accepted is that the British Government had not sufficiently planned for all (or any?) scenarios following a successful ‘Leave’ vote. And whilst most of my fellow countrymen and women are finally looking forwards to putting this shitshow behind us, I can’t shake the feeling that the golf world is sleepwalking into a similarly unplanned outcome with regards the future of the golf ball.
To try and win some support to my following points, I will concede that over recent years it has become increasingly easy for those at the top of the professional game to hit the ball longer and straighter than ever before. It is also a shame that some venues are now redundant for the world’s best – although this is often as much to do with the available infrastructure on-site, as it is the individual length or difficulty of the course.
That said, I can’t stop thinking of those baying for a ‘roll back’ or a ‘bifurcation’ in the same way I felt before the Brexit referendum in 2016.
The R&A have now been given, or rather given themselves, two extended reports to clarify their feelings, somewhat half-heartedly, on distance within the sport in their own report. However, their lack of a clear and specific solution of how any change might be implemented is telling, despite the many suggestions of what might be done.
The more people scratch away at the idea of a blanket ‘roll back’, the more it becomes apparent that this just can’t and won’t work worldwide. Modifications have happened sport-wide on the golf ball before, but it doesn’t seem feasible to steal another 5-25% from the average weekend hacker’s 190-yard drives, and in truth, it’s not these people clambering for a roll back; these calls often come from ex-pros and golf course architects, who’s relationship with the game is substantially different from the Average Joe.
The biggest unanswered question for a blanket ‘roll back’ is - What good would that do for the 99% of the golfing population? At a time where the average round already takes far too long (this is me trying to win support again), making the game harder just seems counter intuitive. There’s also the argument of where do you roll back to? What’s a ‘proper’ yardage for the ball to go? Hank Kuehne was averaging 321 yards off the tee in 2003. John Daly averaged 305 in 1999 – and the metal woods are objectively better nowadays. Do we make it spinnier, rather than shorter? Good for Tiger, but again the weekend golfer’s slice is only going to be exaggerated – there’s only so much a ‘twist face’ can help with … How long do you give people before changing over? What happens to the value of all golf balls in store, and the stock that pros and shops are sat on? What about the businesses whose entire existence depends on the reselling of golf balls – do they have to shut down for a few years?
Like Brexit, it’s not that one idea is necessarily better than another – either to roll back or to leave as it is. But at this point, there hasn’t been enough tangible solutions and explanations for wholesale change. And like a decent links course, the grass isn’t always greener … (another shameless attempt to win friends).
If you concede that a flat out ‘roll back’ is unlikely, the conversation inevitably leads onto a bifurcated solution; and again, this is where my Brexit thing comes in. There are so many facets to the game now, with money at every level, how do you implement it? It’s not any clearer to sort out than a blanket solution.
What now follows is a solid three-minutes’ worth of thinking about some of the questions which would need answering if bifurcation were to go ahead …
What ball do college kids play that are looking to turn pro? If they use the ‘pro ball’ in their competitions, what happens when they go home for the summer, or play in the State / County Amateur? Do you move all ‘serious’ amateur events over to the new ball? If so, what counts as ‘serious’?
If budding young amateurs don’t use the new ball, what happens when they play in professional events? Does the US Amateur Champion have to switch for The Open and The Masters? This seems a little harsh, considering Mr Jones was the last amateur to actually win one of these (The Open, Royal Liverpool 1930). What happens in Pro-Ams and member guests? If the Amateur with a +3 index can use the current ball, but the 60 year-old pro has to use the new one, is that right? What about when Steph Curry tees it up in the Pebble Beach Pro Am and is now 30-yards longer than Ted Potter Jr?
How do you market and sell the ‘pro ball’ so that pro’s can actually get hold of it? Significantly more professional golfers don’t have access to a Tour Department than those that do. Does the local pro have to suddenly buy his golf balls, rather than taking a couple of dozen at cost from his shop’s supply? Will each manufacturer have their own version of the ‘pro ball’ or will that be standardised?
Are all course records now redundant? Is a 64 with the new ball better than a 62 with the old one?
If athletes continue to be better in the modern day than they were in the 1970’s, do we have to do another roll back in a few years? … OK, I’m joking here, just checking you’re still with me.
The point to the above, is that it’s not as simple as just implementing another ball. That decision will impact millions of people. Whether they’re golfers, manufacturers, golf course designers, the list goes on. It can’t be something that’s rammed through, forcing people to deal with the consequences because you’ve got a cult following, and you went to Eton or Harrow and then Cambridge or Oxford and you’ve always done what you bloody well wanted, leaving other people to sort out your mess, even if it means worse trading conditions for our country. Or whatever. You know what I mean.
I wish there were an easy solution, but every significant modification will have hurdles, and it’s for those in charge of the sport to decide how high they want to set these in order help futureproof the elite sport, and to maintain the relevance of the venues that we so revere.
Fundamentally, more solutions need to be presented to the global golfing populations before any change is implemented. You can’t just lead with ‘roll back’ the ball and then clam up when faced with issues like the handful presented earlier in this piece. The sport needs to find a way to implement changes in a manner which is easy to understand across the global game.
Change can’t simply be forced upon the golfing population before each chirpy little set of questions like mine has a clear answer.
Otherwise, we’ll be left negotiating a trade agreement on the 31st December, arguing whether or not we can get shared access to the lake balls we manage to retrieve from international waters.