Perpetual Perspectives | Distance Rollback

On December 6, 2023, the USGA and R&A announced that they will roll the ball back for all gofers. This will go into effect on January 1, 2028 for elite players and on January 1, 2030 for everyone else.

Context:

The two most powerful golfing governing bodies, the USGA and R&A, have been hanging the idea of a distance rollback over the golf community’s head for decades. Numerous technological advancements, such as the Titleist ProV1 and the titanium driver, have caused upticks in how far golfers hit the ball, pushing players’ power to what the governing bodies perceive to be its reasonable upper limit that preserves the sanctity of the game. Thus, on March 14, 2023, they finally pulled the trigger, announcing a proposal that would bifurcate the game into two skill levels with different equipment rules (think metal vs. wooden baseball bats). The USGA and R&A aim to protect some of the most historic and storied clubs who are regular visits by professional tours, as many have been rendered increasingly obsolete by the onslaught of power - they simply have no more space to expand. This proposal would affect only the most high-level golfers (painfully vague, right?) and effectively send the game for them “back to the ‘90s”, as touring pro Michael Kim so eloquently put it. 

Opinion: 
Everyone has an opinion on whether this rollback is an amazing idea, outlandish, or just plain stupid. This article does not aim to provide an objective view but instead aims to compare and contrast two perspectives from two generations of golf aficionados. 

Aficionado 1 is Mark Canno, a middle-aged 5-handicapper and high school golf coach from Westchester, New York.

Mark is for the rollback.

Aficionado 2 is the author of this article, Sajiv Mehta, a 17-year-old high school golfer, and a 0.5 handicap, also from Westchester, New York.

I am against the rollback. 

In our discussion, Mark brought up how holes are becoming less and less defensible to the long hitters: “The par fours are becoming all sand wedges and pitching wedges. And the par fives… [they] used to be long irons. Now they're hitting driver-seven iron.” 

On this issue, I find some common ground with Mark. To a certain extent, the distance of long hitters eases the demand for finesse and precision. In some cases, it is possible to overpower a golf course. To view an example of this, we need look no further than Bryson DeChambeau’s 2020 US Open Victory at Winged Foot. Despite the notoriously difficult conditions at the famed West Course, Bryson pulled away on the 4th day to win with a score of 6-under 274. This prompted a cry for change from many of the game’s old-guard defenders, including many Winged Foot members.

However, even this seemingly key victory for distance over strategy fell to Earth. The victory turned out to be Bryson’s last on the PGA Tour – he never regained his summer ‘20 form before eventually bowing out to the LIV Golf League. This could be attributed to many factors – injuries and heightened pressure among the possibilities. In my opinion, although these could very well be the reason for Bryson’s falloff in performance, we also must examine his victory in Mamaroneck, NY to a greater extent. That week, Winged Foot played a brutish 7,477 yards and the ball-disappearing-in-rough videos were out in full force. Furthermore, most of the holes had a straight setup and narrow fairways. These conditions played directly to the advantage of DeChambeau, who was able to hit it farther down these straight holes than his peers, who hit in the rough anyways. This bomb-and-gouge approach, however, can be defended against. To me, the debate should boil down to how courses choose to defend.

It is here where we can examine our two aficionados’ next difference in perspectives. Canno, very rightfully, points to the inherent limit of courses – space:

When they built these courses, they thought 7000 was going to be long enough, and now you need 7700, 7800, and most places do not have enough land. I think that's the real issue… Open courses in Florida might [be able to expand], but… Merion or some of the ones they've hosted us open, there's no more room to go back. And if they're stuck at 7000 yards and the ball keeps going further, just in the last five years, you've noticed probably a 15-yard difference, for sure.

Again, I find common ground with Mark. Resources are limited, and we must reconcile with them. However, the USGA and R&A’s proposal does not place a great enough emphasis on individual tour-level courses’ potential for change or evaluate recreational players’ place. Regarding course changes, adding more deep bunkers, water hazards, and thoughtfully-placed trees would promote a more strategic approach to playing a course. Or, if courses want to wage an all-out war against bombing, they can add all the obstacles previously mentioned while also varying course layout by including more dog-legs and blind shots. 

Technological advancements mean that recreational players are hitting it farther than ever and are also scoring better than ever. Taking away the every-day golfer’s ability to play the same equipment as the pros would also mean that they would not be able to compare themselves (however embarrassingly) to the best players in the world.

Working with what courses are given is by no means perfect – increasing strategic difficulty and highlighting shotmaking could in theory drive beginners away. However, it is one alternative to the governing bodies’ proposal, which takes the defense against distance out of courses’ hands and solely focuses on the best players in the world. If the USGA and R&A were to roll back distance for just the best, there will come a point in the future where the distance concerns for recreational players would have to be addressed. By evaluating the distance dilemma for all players, instead of just a select few, perhaps the game can regain its finesse and also stay a whole lot of fun.

Mark Canno’s full comments on the rollback can be found here.